Should NBC have aired the video and pictures from the Virginia Tech Murderer?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

For those of you who voted yes - what do you think there is to learn by watching that video?

When it happened, naturally everyone wondered why--what were the shooter's motives? We now have an idea from his video.

Of course, they could have just repeated his words & not shown the video. But, then there is a lot to be lost in mannerism & expression. Not to mention whether they say it or show it, aren't those who might use such information negatively going to be affected either way?

Undoubtedly this incident and others will influence future laws & decisions. We as the people have a voice in such things. The more information we have, the better we can form our own opinion and cast our vote for change.

In general, I'd rather not have a soft, fuzzy blanket thrown over my head to protect me from having to see such things. Of course, underneath I'm warm & cozy, but also far more vulnerable to potential enemies.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Yes. why wouldn't they.

Because it's offensive to a significant portion of the population. All it does is sensationalize what was already known.

Back in July 2005, do you think it would have been appropriate for the BBC to air graphic footage of the of the mangle remains of the victims of the London subway bombing?

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Of course, they could have just repeated his words & not shown the video.

That's what I'm to get at.

And I wonder if the possibility that the "good" ?? that comes from seeing this sick violent video - outweighs the trauma it could potentially inflict on the victims families in mourning, the survivors still suffering, and even the survivors of all of the other school shootings, etc.

Shit - even children lucky enough not to have been involved in a school shooting in the past few years - are afraid to go to school.

Is there really something for 'us' - the watchers, the distant bystanders - to gain that trumps what those personally affected will experience.

I'm not looking for a soft and fuzzy world. Trust me, I'm no polyanna. But I do believe in compassion and respect sometimes before profit.

(I for one do not think the potential for copycats or glorification is a reason not to show it. Video or not, those people are out there.)

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[shropshire 0]

The video of his that I saw had no victims (which would be as wrong (to me) as showing dead folk in the news from any country - and yet that is done most nights) in so the question about showing mangled remains from London does not apply.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The video of his that I saw had no victims (which would be as wrong (to me) as showing dead folk in the news from any country - and yet that is done most nights) in so the question about showing mangled remains from London does not apply.

I see. So showing dead people is the cut off? What a civil society we live in.

[shropshire 0]

???I have no idea what you are getting at.

The 2 videos are not in the slightest bit similar and so can not be compared. What's your point?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[NCclimber 0]

My point is that these photos and video were nothing more than voyeuristic sensationalism, that did little (if anything) to give us new relevant information. At the same time, it was obviously offensive and considered inappropriate to many Americans.

On a side issue, the growing trend of the media showing (possibly) objectional material may have a desensitizing effect on society as a whole.

Then again, a fair number of people out there think concepts like societal norms, morality and standards of decency are simply repressive, with no positive aspects.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

The video of his that I saw had no victims (which would be as wrong (to me) as showing dead folk in the news from any country - and yet that is done most nights) in so the question about showing mangled remains from London does not apply.

Here's another hypothetical:

Your wife is raped. A few days later, after bringing her home from the hospital, and after the rapist has been caught - on the news you both see a video of the rapist yelling right into the camera "I'm going to get you! You made me do this. You had a million chances to prevent it!"

(Even typing this scenario made my heart pound. )

edited in response to the Bin Laden question some posts below.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

But I do believe in compassion and respect sometimes before profit.

I would even say I almost always believe in such before profit. This is not what is being discussed, however. Nor is why I believe the footage should have been shown related to profit for NBC.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

This is not what is being discussed, however.

I guess I could've been more clear.

I believe that's why NBC showed the video. Ratings.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[PLFXpert 0]

How then, do you feel about the media airing video of Osama Bin Laden after the Sept. 11th attacks?

No, I'm not saying NBC didn't also think about the profit to be made.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

Whew!

In my opinion, that's another issue altogether...and kind of a red herring.

(There are too many ways that scenario is different to really compare without multiple tangents.)

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

I don't see a problem with NBC showing parts of that video. Rosie O'Donnell can kiss my rock-hard buns! The whackos of the world are going to do what they are going to do. I think that trying to blame T.V, movies, rap or news video is wrong. In most cases, all the signs were there but, noone paid attention.


Chuck

I wish Cho had shot Rosie O'Donnell instead...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

and kind of a red herring.

I disagree. Sept. 11 is a completely different issue, but whether or not video of the person responsible should be shown is quite applicable, as a point you made earlier was one of "can't they just tell us rather than having to show the video?"

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

Nope. Still believe it's a bad comparison.

But I'll bite a little:

translating bin laden form arabic to english has a similar effect to a news anchor telling vs. showing the video;

and although bin laden was the mastermind behind the attacks, he was not on the scene. A better comparison here would be NBC airing a bunch of plane crashes on Sept. 12. (which by the way, they did not - everyone self-censored to some degree. A commercial of mine was pulled from the air out of sensitivity.)

I didn't say "why can't they just tell us instead of show the video". I know why - profit.

I said "what is there possibly to gain - that outweighs what the damage that can (will) be done." Again, I can't think of anything other than profit - and it's titillating for the 'watchers'.

Oh, and a measuring stick for determining nutty boyfriends.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I said "what is there possibly to gain - that outweighs what the damage that can (will) be done."

I addressed the gain--motive. You originally asked:

Quote

What should I have learned when I accidentally stumbled upon it - that I didn't already know?

You should have learned an idea of why he did it. This information was not known beforehand. We knew only he'd written some papers and was a disturbed individual.

And though I can't speak for the victims or their families, my best guess would be to say most would want to know his motive as well.

I get it, though--you'd prefer the media to have simply told us his motive.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

A better comparison here would be NBC airing a bunch of plane crashes on Sept. 12. (which by the way, they did not

It's only a better comparison to you b/c it proves your point; they didn't show it for reasons of sensitivity.

Osama (and pictures, etc. of terrorists who were "on the scene") was shown quickly after, thus I chose that instead to help illustrate my point.

Bygones.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

A better comparison here would be NBC airing a bunch of plane crashes on Sept. 12. (which by the way, they did not

It's only a better comparison to you b/c it proves your point; they didn't show it for reasons of sensitivity.

Osama (and pictures, etc. of terrorists who were "on the scene") was shown quickly after, thus I chose that instead to help illustrate my point.

Bygones.

It's a better comparison in my mind because it goes to the root of what I think is the reason why the video did not need to be shown. And it's apples to apples.

No one who saw the terrorists on the scene lived. No one. Everyone saw the planes and the fireballs and the building collapses.

And I addressed why I believe that images of bin laden and images of Cho cannot be compared equally. We are/were still hunting the terrorists - pictures of wanted criminals does have a place on TV, the video shown of the terrorists was not 'in your face' ranting that anyone could have immediately related to, etc.

My earlier hypothetical about the rapist is the perfect picture of my point of view.

You're free to have yours.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[shropshire 0]

I understand.... but where do we draw the line then? ... why, for example, is it acceptable (because it clearly is because they do it) do our news programs show picture of dead folk in Iraq and we can watch and listen to mad Muhlars (sp) ranting and raving about wiping us off the face of the earth etc.... etc...

We, in the UK, had a very strange set of rules for the news folk a few years ago, whereby the IRA nutters could be seen on the news but their voices could not be heard...Odd, you might think, but it gets worse...... although we could not listen to them speaking, we did hear their words spoken by actors lip syncing.... it was a surreal time.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[AndyBoyd 0]

"For those of you who voted yes - what do you think there is to learn by watching that video? (I'm talking about the random public, not law enforcement and/or those in the crime and mental health professions.)

What should I have learned when I accidentally stumbled upon it - that I didn't already know?"

I voted yes, and I'll try to explain why. In terms of new facts about this horrible incident, there is probably nothing that can be learned from these video and pics. But for me personally, the images helped me to understand how deeply disturbed this guy was in a way that words on a page simply can't convey. It's one thing to read in a newspaper about how crazy this guy was, or to hear a TV reporter talk about it. But to actually see and hear it for myself, I think I've got a much better understanding of this guy and his motivations than I had before I saw those images. In other words, without those pics and vids, I would not have been as informed as I could have been. So I think the news media did their jobs properly by showing these things. There are always limits, and I freely admit that I'm not sure where to draw the line. I don't need or want to see pics of the bloody victims, for example. Just my two cents. I know this is a very sensitive issue.

[PLFXpert 0]

The real point and question asked I responded to first & foremost.

We can instead debate use of comparisons but...again,

bygones.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

In other words, without those pics and vids, I would not have been as informed as I could have been.

We all process and understand information differently and require different presentations to best fit us...

Freeflybella, you and I can tell people facts all day long about the horrors that go on in animal factory farming. Why then do some people not seem to really "get it" until they actually see the video footage of such abuse (even though they're seeing that which we already told them)?

And again, there IS new information to be learned from the video. The question is whether or not it can be learned just as well w/out having to had seen the video. It seems you are absolutely sure it can be?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you and I can tell people facts all day long about the horrors that go on in animal factory farming

like the lies about the 'killing floors'


they are really more of a grate to allow for better drainage

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PLFXpert 0]

Oy vey.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflybella 0]

to andyboyd and plfxpert:

One thing I want be clear about, I'm not suggesting that NBC should've been barred from showing the video.

I intended to let you have the last word - and hopefully you will
I agree that people process and understand things in different ways. Maybe it would've been more appropriate (if sensitivity to the survivors, their families; and the survivors and families of other school/mass shootings were first and foremost in the minds of news stations) to keep it off the air and direct those interested in viewing it to a website. Either a LiveLeak kind-of-thing or, more profitably, to the news stations own website.


(Hey Carrie, remember back in the animal rights thread when I said I didn't know when to quit on these internet debatey things? I quit!)

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi