It’s funny how critics of the mainstream media chafe at the MSM’s failures to report the full story on many issues, like, say, Iraq, but when they do go out and fully report a story, like, say, giving us the photos and videos made by that lunatic who went on a murderous rampage at Virginia Tech this week, all of a sudden the press gets it between the eyes for reporting too much.
We fully understand and sympathize with the anger and pain the families of the victims of the massacre experienced at seeing Cho’s twisted face on their TV screens in what seemed like a constant loop, but then again no one ever accused television news of showing less when it could show more.
Think back to the weeks and months after 9/11, when the nation (and the world) was blanketed with images of the second plane striking the World Trade Center, and ash-covered civilians stumbling out of lower Manhattan. Was it ugly? You bet. Was it necessary? Perhaps in terms of catharsis, it was, but not in any informational sense.
The uproar over NBC (and every other cable and network news program) releasing and showing the inane ramblings of Cho Seung-Hui has taken an odd turn. Instead of arguing over the failures of the mental health system or the educational system or how Cho managed to acquire guns and ammunition so easily, we’ve been reduced to squabbling over whether or not to show images of the killer.
What’s more, some critics are assuming much more than they can possibly know about the motivations behind releasing the tape.
Perpetual crank Mickey Kaus, for example, is disgusted by the fact that NBC released the video, writing that, “If NBC hadn’t run the video, future mass murderers might send their ratings-boosters to CBS. (I’m not saying NBC execs consciously made this calculation, but it’s built into the standard reporter-source algorithm that if you give sources what they want, more will come. And it’s true.) …”
Kaus also quotes “L.A. cop” Jack Dunphy in the National Review as saying, “None of them will ever admit this publicly, of course, but in the safety of their corner offices at Rockefeller Center sit men and women who are privately gleeful at the ratings boost they were given in the form of the box that landed in their mail room Wednesday morning.’
The great thing about op-ed writing like this is that you never have to actually prove your point. Kaus and Dunphy simply toss these charges out without having any inside track on the discussions NBC had in-house about airing the tapes. It would be naïve to think that ratings weren’t a consideration that weighed on NBC’s decision-making process, but Kaus and Dunphy are under no burden to either prove it, or to discount it. It’s just easy opinion.
But that’s what keeps people coming back to guys like Kaus.

Paul McLeary Gives The Laugh of the Day
then again no one ever accused television news of showing less when it could show more
padikiller notes the all-to-obvious irony
Yeah...
The networks have NEVER shown less, when they could have have shown more, now have they?...
Except when the major networks (except Fox News) all refused to air the innocuous Mohammed Cartoons of Rape, Death, and Mayhem, that is...
CJR was RIGHT there to lambast the self-censorship, sticking up for free press and the rights of readers to view the cartoons for themselves, right?..
I mean, what other stance would a "watchdog" of "professional journalism" take?...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 20 Apr 2007 at 05:11 PM
So what's your point, Padikiller? McLeary points out how the Media gets criticised both for releasing too much and too little information, and you snidely agree with him...
Also, I'm unable to find any reference to Fox News having aired the Mohammed cartoons. There is an account of Michelle Malkin attempting to show copies of them on Hannity and Colmes, which was cut off, and she apparently posted them on her blog. Is that what you're referring to?
Posted by UnSpun on Mon 23 Apr 2007 at 03:44 PM
I am not commenting on the decision to air Cho's "manifesto"... That WAS a tough decision and I can see both sides...
I am merely pointing out the fact that Mr. McLeary is wrong when he states that "no one ever accused television news of showing less when it could show more."
MANY people wanted the MSM to show the Innocuous Mohammed Cartoons of Rape, Plunder and Death....
And CJR, as a "watchdog" should have been there fighting censorship and demanding coverage....
(As for FOX News airing the cartoons... I don't know... I remember reading at the time that the cartoons appeared on Fox News- I don't know the circumstances and I don't watch TV more than a few times a year... I don't even have cable)
Posted by padikiller on Mon 23 Apr 2007 at 06:01 PM
Making up facts again, Padi? When will you learn, my friend? When will you learn?
Which cartoons are you talking about? The ones that were published or the ones that were added by the radicals to incite the public?
Here's a blog that mentions the added cartoons and links to the ones published.
Posted by AhmNee on Tue 24 Apr 2007 at 04:01 AM
Forgot the link. D'oh!
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/775
Posted by AhmNee on Tue 24 Apr 2007 at 04:04 AM
AhmNee babbled
Making up facts again, Padi?
padikiller responds
Er..... No....
The American TV news outlets refused to air the cartoons... And CJR stood by without standing up for free speech...
That's just how it is.... That's just the reality...
If you think you can prove otherwise by clicking your heels together, smoking enough peyote, or some other way... GO for it... Let's see it...
Otherwise, grow up and deal with the truth...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 24 Apr 2007 at 08:25 AM
NBC is selective when it comes to deciding what is offensive and what is not. Remember, "l'affaire Imus" occured only a few days before the videos were shown. NBC should be asked to explain how Imus's comments were "hurtful" and, thusly, the speaker should be removed from the airwaves, but the hurt that showing the videos would cause was less important than their news value, which was . . . ?
Posted by johng on Tue 24 Apr 2007 at 01:37 PM
johng wrote
NBC should be asked to explain how Imus's comments were "hurtful" and, thusly, the speaker should be removed from the airwaves, but the hurt that showing the videos would cause was less important than their news value, which was . . . ?
padikiller responds
This is a very good observation... I haven't kept up with the Imus incident, but if NBC did what johng says it did, then we have here a stark example of the politically correct, Orwelliam doublespeak that has become standard-issue MSM policy..
This MSM doublestandard needs to be addressd here-exposing such malpractice is squarely within CJR's stated mission, after all...
And if the CJR "watchdogs" who get paid to keep such political self-censorship in check can't get the job done, then the volunteers will have to do it...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 24 Apr 2007 at 06:38 PM
Padikiller changes his toon.
The American TV news outlets refused to air the cartoons... And CJR stood by without standing up for free speech...
Didn't you just say moments before that you're beloved FOX news was the only news source to show the cartoons? Therefore my babbling seems to have a valid point. You're spouting off once again with flawed information. Bravo.
Don't feel too badly, Padi, at least you're entertaining.
Posted by AhmNee on Wed 25 Apr 2007 at 02:44 AM
As a viewer who was on vacation at the time of the incident, I sympathize with both sides of what is called “over-reporting”. You couldn’t turn on a single television channel without seeing pictures from the package. I don’t necessarily call this over-reporting, but it was zeroing in on the stuff that sells. My television production teacher says, “If it bleeds, it leads.” That statement could not better illustrate the point of the article. I also agree with the idea that this isn’t even a topic worth arguing about when there are so many more important things going on in the world; but then, what was this article doing? It was engaging in the battle.
I disagree with the statement, “but then again no one ever accused television news of showing less when it could show more.” Most people are of the opinion that the news does not report enough of the important information anymore. When Anna Nicole died, her story led the news for 3 days. No important information about any other topic was released until after the first commercial break.
I originally went searching for more information about the massacre when it happened, but now I do believe it’s gone too far. I could practically draw some of the pictures of him in my sleep. Some things should be kept to a minimum. Show it once and be done.
Posted by Pixie on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:13 PM
While the public recuperates from the Tragedy at Virginia Tech, the public media is getting serious heat, saying they released “too much.” If there is one fact, it is this: You cannot hide information from the public. It is better for the public to know the cold hard facts of the tragedy rather than live in disbelief. NBC’s actions of releasing the videotapes, images, however disturbing they may be, and other documents are absolutely justifiable because it is the publics right to know the true story. Amendment one of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law of an abridging of the press.” Meaning, Congress should make any laws limiting what the press says or does. The press should fully use that right because it gives people the truth, whether they like it or not. Although many cannot bear the truth, which is fully sympathized, it will eventually help them become that much emotionally stronger in the longer end of it. If all else fails, that is why the Television has a remote, as well as an off button.
Posted by ZackAttack on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:30 PM
It seems that any release of information, even the release of photographs from the scene, has to be under a large amount of scrutiny from the public. While executives and reporters from NBC didn’t think twice before airing the videos and other media found in the package from the killer, many who watched the show were outraged at the content shown.
When a violent attack occurs, even on a small scale, the public becomes concerned. Many members of the community want to see photographs for whatever reason. They want to know exactly what happened. Of all of the people in the community, there are often a few who are offended by the extra coverage. I believe that it is at the discretion of the news source to decide what to report.
Based on what the article said, NBC showed nothing obscene or worthy of being cut. What they showed was footage that the average citizen would care to see – video and photography that helps to piece the story together for the average reader and listener.
Posted by zackfeld25 on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:36 PM
One would have to agree that the War in Iraq is an occurring tragedy that has been ongoing for several years. After the explosion of the World Trade Center, America has endured the misfortune of war, as numerous troops have been sent out overseas. Through press conferences, video images and news updates, America has been faced with the real life effects of the war. They have assimilated, adjusted and accepted the war as a normal part of life. However, the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech was an event that was “out of the ordinary” and no one that anyone believed would happen. Although the nation has witnessed deaths from the war and have come to expect the growing death toll, the death of thirty- two students on the Virginia Tech campus came to a shock.
With constant media covering the Virginia Tech Campus, the attention has been taken away from other important events such as the war. Although there was controversy regarding the killer’s videotapes and documents as Mickey Kaus previously stated: “If NBC hadn't run the video, future mass murderers might send their ratings-boosters to CBS”, the public has the right to know. Within history classes, students are educated via media regarding past wars and programs such as The History Channel create documentaries focusing on significant historical events that have affected the country. Although Kaus believes that his will generate future killers as this can potentially “glorify” killing sprees, the public should have the right to obtain knowledge on events. Despite claims of misuse regarding the tapes, the public is able to significantly analyze the occurrences to potentially prevent tragedies from occurring at other campuses.
Posted by Cfein on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:45 PM
To be completely honest, I have no idea what-so-ever how people can find offense in seeing the murderer's face on national television. News, and news, and what we should aim first and fore most on an issue like this is safety. Ask youself some of this question: What can we do in order to make sure that something like this never happens again?
When the video of the killer was shown, it was not intended to insult the family of the victims at Virginia Tech, in fact, I don't see how they can find this insulting. If I was a parent and my child was killed, I would give the press all the information that they need in order to change security around the nation, and make sure that no more innocent students turn into what my child has become.
Everyone, this is for America, and the people do have a right to know about the victims of the most horrendous school shooting in America, because we are all concerned. We are not over reporting, in fact, we are under report. This isn't to insult the graves of the dead students, or their family. This is to make sure that there are no more students who have to die at school. This is to make sure that students can set foot on school grounds without any fear in their mind that something could happen.
This is for America.
Posted by MeKnowENGLSHlolz on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:46 PM
The media has the right to exercise freedom of speech and therefore can show whatever they want including Cho Seung-Hui’s Manifesto. I don’t agree with the media giving publicity to the tape instead of focusing on other important things like security on campus, how Cho managed to get guns so easily and why he still managed to stay in school even though he was known for stalking girls on campus and writing disturbing papers. Also the way the police and the school has handle the situation is far more controversial than a twenty-five minute manifesto. I do believe NBC was looking for better ratings when they showed Cho’s tape, that’s just common sense, and although people like Kaus are upset over this whole controversy, freedom of speech is one of the most important rights a citizen has. Like it or not the media can show or say as much as they want.
Posted by Varela08 on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:47 PM
I agree for the most part, with your article. Regarding the Virginia Tech incident, I believe that the general public widely scrutinized. Rather than showing a video of the killer, I believe we should know more about the victims and the families. Rather than repeatedly showing the killer, we should focus more on the victims and how the school and community is trying to recover from the incident. The video of Seung-Hui Cho is irrelevant to the Virginia Tech killing. The news stations should focus more on the incident itself than the killer.
The most disturbing part of the killings is that Cho should not have been allowed in the school in the first place. Many people referred to him as a “shady” person. During class, he would write disturbing plays about killing people. I feel that the Virginia Tech security should have provided this man with some help. Rather than doing anything about it, they let him be and he killed over 32 people.
I agree with the blog the Paul McCleary wrote. The news stations should not waste their time with Cho. He is a disturbed individual who deserves no attention with the media. Instead, we should have coverage of the victims and their families. I want to know how the community and the country are dealing with the tragedy, not videos of this guy. I agree with what Mr. McCleary has to say.
Posted by JPG3 on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:48 PM
Where is the line drawn? When is violence “too violent”? When should the disease called crime be pushed in a closet? Never! The job of a news station is to educate it’s viewers of events ranging from sports to weather, hard hitting to soft news, success to failure. The job of a news station is to investigate, to dig deeper than others. The business of news is to discover the unknown first. As the expression goes, “the early bird gets the worm.” A news station devotes it’s integrity and purpose to getting to proverbial “bottom” of a story where there is no mystery left.
So where is the line drawn? There is no line and nor should there be one. If one dislikes or is offended by shown information than the solution is simple, change the channel!
One problem in the world today is that we know the issues but we fail to address them. We find a way to “beat around the bush,” and avoid attacking the problems head on.
Tragedy is the only word fitting enough to describe the incidents at Virginia Tech, but does that mean we mourn without finding out what went wrong? The truth is that school violence is on the rise. Columbine in 1999 was only the start and now we have become victim to outrageous acts of violence that all seem to say that they never saw it coming. Why is this violence never seen developing? The answer exists within everyone who dares to try and avoid the problems.
Why should the tape sent in by the killer be shown? The answer is simple and it’s not difficult to agree with. Simply, viewing of the video will help avoid this tragedy from occurring anywhere else on any scale in size. The ignorance of Cho Seung-Hui problems ultimately fueled the fire that pushed him to murderous extent.
Some people are not mentally strong enough to handle society so the duty to help is in the hands of the surrounding parties. The problem again is that most see this opportunity to change a life as a burden. No one helped. In no way am I trying to formulate Cho Seung-Hui into a victim, rather I urge others to help. The solution of safety in schools exists in the communication between adults, children, parents, friends, siblings and community.
Show the video to show the world how sick-minded and disturbed some people can be. Show the video to give an example of a murdered, to show that hate and violence can exist in anyone. More importantly, show the video to influence a change in the way we handle our problems. The power to save lives of not only future victims but also their killers is in the hands of community. Unfortunately a event similar to this will happen again, the question to ask at that point would be, who was there to help?
Posted by MediaMan37 on Fri 27 Apr 2007 at 01:55 PM