Do you believe NBC made the right choice in showing the Cho Video and Pictures?

[MadBadger]

[MadBadger]

1. I do support the decision

I dont think we should be shielded from these things and that the media should show it to us.

[TahitiNut]

38. The last thing I want, as an ADULT, is having others decide "what's good for me" to know.

I've got the off-button - I've got the remote control. I'll be damned if I'll do to others (or support some media corporations doing it) what I wouldn't want done to me.

[Flarney]

51. The issue is not about whether or not concerned, sane adults see it...

...it's the effect of having other mentally ill people who may be considering such violence see it and realize that they might be able to get their message broadcast to the world as well...it just makes mass-murder more attractive. And anyway, why should a killer's dying wish be carried out just for the morbid curiosity of the public and to sell more commercials?

[TahitiNut]

55. With respect, I regard that as codependent thinking.

On the one hand we hear that there's no logic and no reason and no sanity driving Cho's behavior and then, on the other hand, we attempt to argue for censorship and other acts based on some presumed 'logic' or reasoning of some (unidentified) crazy person.

If anything, we're too isolated and 'safeguarded' from the realities that many people on this planet face on a daily baisis. It's turning us into a completely "gated community" - where people can go through their daily lives without ever having to view such "distasteful" things as the illnesses and injuries and death and suffering that we consign to other "gated communities."

We treat ourselves like children ... and even children in most parts of the world have more contact with everyday reality than adults in the U.S. We have lives filled with toys and recess - we've entertained ourselves into brain-death.

We need to grow up.

[Flarney]

58. I dont think healthy people should be "shielded" from anything...

...but mentally ill people with psychotic thoughts should be kept from seeing an aggrandizing spectacle resulting from a tragedy that they might be contemplating. I agree with you though about the news in general being too sanitized. I think the mainstream media showed a real picture of war it would be over in a heartbeat. It pisses me off when we see the differing covers on Time magazine or Newsweek...Europe gets coverage of the realities of the war in Afghanistan, we get Anna Nicole Smith, etc. As for Virginia Tech, the focus should not be on the images and videos that Cho wanted us to see, but on raising awareness of mental illness and the societal failings that allowed him to fall through the cracks.

[The Stranger]

66. Yes!

[The Stranger]

65. No, because even if that were the issue, mentally ill people SHOULD NOT be the determinant to what I

see, hear and to what public information I will have access. As an adult in a free society, I will make those decisions for myself.

If you don't want to exercise your right to know in a free society, that is your choice, but you cannot make that decision for me.

[Flarney]

67. I'm not trying to make any kind of decision for you...

...and I wouldn't presume to. But, if we as a society collectively decide that encouraging copy-cat murders is bad, and that broadcasting the delusional ravings of a mentally ill person who went on a rampage does indeed encourage copy-cat crimes, then I think it's fair to consider not broadcasting such material. That's all I'm sayin'.

[The Stranger]

99. Censoring the materials-- in whatever form-- would deny people their right to know what is going on.

If you don't like it, then don't watch it -- by all means. But do not censor it from those who want to be informed.

Maybe it is important to see what it was that drove this individual to such extremes. Instead of trying to deny the whole series of events, maybe it is better to try to understand it. And let each adult in a free society see it and decide for themselves.

That way, maybe it can be prevented in the future.

[Flarney]

106. I think his material should be studied by mental health professionals...

but I still think that some serious thought should be given to weighing the competing concerns (IMHO) of everyone's right to know what's going on vs. the potential that the mass-broadcast of the killer's message sends an encouraging message to other would-be mass-murderers.

I'll just say this, if it was my network I wouldn't have aired it. And ain't that just worth a hill o' beans. :-)

I respect your position, and we agree that more attention should be given to the mental health issues lead to such tragedies...as for the mass broadcast of the contents, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unless you don't want to, then we can disagree to disagree. Wait...what?

Edit: I guess my core argument is that censorship isn't 100% always a bad thing. There are many things we as a society decide are best left censored for national security purposes. Does this topic fall under that category? That's clearly worthy of debate. It's the idealism of "censorship is bad, I'm an adult, put it all out there and let me decide" vs. the practicality of "what are the possible outcomes of publishing this material, and does it's value to a mass audience outweigh the risks that go with, specifically, an intense media spectacle that airs what the killer wanted aired."

[Garbo 2004]

86. But the mass media does it all the time. Cover Downing St Minutes? No. Mass murderer's press kit,

yes. The corporate media makes those kinds of decisions every day. They decide what they put before the public and gets their air time, regardless of national importance or public's "need to know."

[LibraLiz1973]

61. Who cares about shielding YOU or any of US?

However, the victims families certainly have the right to be shielded.
They have just suffered a trauma unlike anything you can imagine.
This is world news- so already it was everywhere.
Now everywhere they turn that maniac LOSERS picture stares back at them with a gun or a hammer.
TV, Internet, Newspapers, Magazines.. And the radio is playing clips.

I think the families deserved more respect.

[cwydro]

2. I voted no.

It is making him a hero.

kick, because I would like to see what everyone thinks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It is NEWS

even if uncomfortable news

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. No, it's not.

The news was three days ago. There was some follow ups the previous day- names of perp, victims, etc.

Then it stopped being news.

Now it's just voyeurism/exhibitionism.

[MadBadger]

8. Trying to figure out why Cho did what he did.

Is that news?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. No, it's not.

It's not even finding out why Cho did it.

[cwydro]

34. wow

you and I actually agree on something.:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. By that logic all investigators on the case should

stop work IMMEDIATELY

We raelly never need to learn why things happen, even uncomfortable things

[uppityperson]

25. IF they were, that would be news. This is voyeurism.

If they want to try to make sense, focus on interviewing people who have studied him. Showing his crap does not fall into the category of figuring out why he did what he did at this time but is voyeurism.

[Maru Kitteh]

85. Showing his crap can sometimes be the illustrative example that

some people need to understand the difference between a guy who is "pretty weird" and a guy who could put a few bullets in somebody's head unless intervention occurs.

It had news value.

It had illustrative/educational value.

[KittyWampus]

60. Wow, I've been disagreeing with you for a while. But on this we concur. For same reason

No one has the "right" to see or hear this stuff.

Law enforcement, yes

Maybe the guy's parents,

And there's a slim argument to be made for the victim's immediate family.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

87. It is absolutely news

Two days after the terrible event when videos, photos, and a written manifesto come to light is news. I know you're entitled to your opinion, but to me it's not voyeurism and I certainly don't want a corporate media telling me what is exhibitionism or voyeurism and what is not. There's too much big brother in this society as it is, telling me what's good for me.

If the materials had been censored and if the public knew there were videos, photos, and written material about this killer shedding light on what had happened, we would not want censorship. If the media self-censored, people would be clamoring to know why. While I know that the manifesto contained the ramblings of a sick mind and didn't make a whole lot of sense, it is still news. Exposure of the killer's sick mind for what it was to explain what happened was quite relevant, newsworthy, and of interest to the public. I really don't know what could possibly be MORE relevant to the story than these videos, photos, and the writings of the killer.

You have your right to an opinion on this. But so do I, and I'm not going to stand one minute for news censorship or someone in the corporate media censoring a story supposedly for my own good.

[SusanaMontana41]

90. What you said.

n/t

[El Supremo]

11. The only news was its delivery.

[Flarney]

17. Exactly, beyond that it was ridiculously irresponsible to broadcast his images/messages... n/t

[Flarney]

14. His actual message wasn't news. They were the ramblings of a mentally ill person...

...broadcasting his message looks mighty attractive to potential copycats, I would bet.

What's more important? The "right" for everyone to see, broadcast on every news channel, the insane ramblings of a psychotic killer, or protecting society from potential copycats by not giving them the attention they want? Especially when the substance of the message was inconsequential?

It's sad...selling commercials (ratings) trumped peoples' lives.

[MadBadger]

19. Copycats didnt need his message to act.

[Flarney]

23. Obviously, but broadcasting the message undeniably increases the attractiveness of such action.

What has anyone gained from seeing the photos and videos other than satisfying morbid curiosity? Not a damn thing.

[uppityperson]

26. Copycats seeking publicity and not just murder/suicide, it helps.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Did you watch the video?

If so, did you make the right choice?

[MadBadger]

7. Did I make the right choice in watching the video?

If that is what you are asking, then yes I did watch the video and I feel I did make the right choice.

[bonito]

46. Great answer

I didn't, and I feel I made the right choice.

[El Supremo]

5. I guess so. We'd eventually see it sometime.

[dragonlady]

9. They should have reported that the materials were sent

and described in generalities what they contained. They should not have shown the pictures themselves or the verbatim text of the letter. This course would satisfy the public's right to know what is going on without putting the victims' families through more heartache or encouraging more violent behavior.

[butterfly77]

10. Should the networks show have shown us...

the nicholas berg, terrorists, carnage in Iraq and other distasteful things also?

[MadBadger]

15. There is a difference

[butterfly77]

28. What is it?

[MadBadger]

30. You are talking about showing things such as beheadings

correct?

[EFerrari]

31. The difference is that not dealing with mental illness in an effective

way can get people dead much quicker than any so called "threat" from terrorists.

That's the difference. If we had a workable way to deal with Cho, those people would be alive today.

[zippy890]

12. AP: Backlash on airing of video

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_en_tv/virginia_tech_nbc

"NEW YORK - With a backlash developing against the media for airing sickening pictures from Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui, Fox News Channel said Thursday it would stop and other networks said they would severely limit their use. "

.....

I am glad they are pulling the video, it is disgraceful the way the news channels have been repeating this story with the video and images from the video.

[cwydro]

13. kick

again.

[Maddy McCall]

18. I support a free flow of information. I do not want the media to "protect" me.

If the media always considered who would be upset about the news they presented, we'd get NO news.

I prefer to have the information presented. It is up to me, as a mature adult, to decide whether or not to turn the channel or subscribe to a different news source.

[MadBadger]

32. I agree with you completely on what you say.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. It's not about protecting you....

It's about preventing every nutjob with a gun and a desire for fifteen minutes of fame from getting the idea that you get face time on national television if your body count is high enough.

[Maddy McCall]

70. So what's your solution?

If that's what you want to prevent, then no news channel should have televised ANYTHING to do with this story.

[mondo joe]

81. I'm not prepared to turn our culture into a psych ward or nursery in which we need to be

protected from information for our own good.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. Let me reply to both of you at once...

It doesn't mean journalists don't cover the story -- It means that they don't go into wall-to-wall "All Cho All The Time" mode. News networks have become so ratings-obsessed that they've forgotten that they serve a vital public purpose, and neither of those purposes would be to entertain and tittilate their audience. The news is not a product; it's the first rough draft of history. I know it's expecting too much for news organizations to report the news calmly and responsibly, but that's what they have to do.

As a citizen, you have no constitutionally guaranteed right to view the rantings of a lunatic. Whatever purile or ghoulish interest you may have in the last will and testament of Cho Sueng-Hui doesn't outweigh the danger posed by encouraging other equally-disturbed individuals. A desire for attention was clearly factor into his rampage. You think this is just idle speculation on my part? You might be right. If only we had some kind of clue. What a moment; I think I have one.

He paused in the middle of a blood bath to Fedex a publicity package to NBC

Yeah. That's a pretty good indication of where he was at. And do you suppose that the publicity he sought (and obtained, thanks to NBC) isn't going to inspire others? Read On...

Threats lead to lockdown of California counties' schools
..
By Dorothy Korber, M.S. Enkoji and Kim Minugh
McClatchy Newspapers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A disturbed man's alleged threat to stage a suicidal massacre sent a shudder of fear throughout the region Thursday, setting off an intense manhunt and putting schools across Sutter and Yuba counties into lockdown mode.

With the suspect still at large late Thursday, officials in those two counties have closed all public schools Friday. The goal, educators said, was to allow police to put their full effort into the hunt for the suspect, rather than guarding schools and the 33,000 affected students.

There might have been few students to guard, anyway. Frightened parents pulled their children out of class in droves Thursday while police searched in vain for Jeffery Thomas Carney, 28.

The Yuba City, Calif., man allegedly told his pastor he is planning a killing spree that would make Monday's Virginia Tech tragedy look "mild by comparison."

-snip-

Let's hope the Mr. Carney's manifesto is in HDTV...

[mondo joe]

97. Let's get clear - there's a difference between showing it and ALL CHO ALL THE TIME.

Additionally, no one said there was a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to see the video. But neither is there a constitutional right to be treated like a nation of children or psychos.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

100. Unfortunately, we are a nation of psycho's...

At least, there are just enough of them so that this kind of attention will cause them to get ideas of their own. There is no inherent newsworthiness in broadcasting this guy's diatribe on national television, and your morbid curiousity does not trump public safety.

[mondo joe]

104. Got hyperbole? What else should we ban exposure to? Judas Priest? Coffins from Iraq?

I haven't even WATCHED the diatribe because I'm not curious about it - so drop your ad hominem.

If you don't want to see it, it's EASY to not see. I managed to do it.

If you want corporations to decide what is safe or acceptable for Americans to see, you're in luck - we seem to be heading down that path.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

107. Never Mind...

I thought this was going to be an intelligent discussion. I clearly over-estimated you.

Good luck finishing junior high school.

[mondo joe]

111. So just another ad hominem from you? Thanks.

[LibraLiz1973]

63. How about PROTECTING the families?

Or is that just to humane for everyone?

Can you imagine the torture of seeing your childs/grandchilds/husband/wife/sister/brothers killer on the news over and over and over?

Do you think that is in any way contributing to the PTSD that many of them probably have?
These peoples lives have been destroyed. Do they not deserve some fucking consideration here?

[Maddy McCall]

69. If I were a family member right now...

I'd not be watching TV.

What about our soldiers' families? Should the news from Iraq be sanitized so that our soldiers' families aren't saddened or angered by it?

These families DO deserve consideration. But that consideration can be expressed in many ways (and indeed IS being expressed in many ways) besides selectively sanitizing the news.

[LibraLiz1973]

73. I really don't think the two can be compared

I see your point about the loss but these families lost their loved ones because of ONE man- a mad murderer.
You have no idea what they are doing right now. Do you think NONE of the 32 families are watching tv, checking their email, listening to the radio or looking at a newspaper?

Imagine for a second how you would feel if you were bombarded by images of the man who killed the person you love. Pictures showing him posing with his angry expression and his guns.
That was the last thing many of those people saw. Is it such a stretch to imagine that it might be upsetting to the families and friends left behind?


I think NBC could have used better judgement in releasing that footage.

[mondo joe]

82. Sounds like Bushco's argument about not showing the coffins coming home from war.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Bingo, it is the EXACT argument

I wish they started showign them coffins too... and real footage of the war during the five O'Clock News

[jus_the_facts]

20. It just goes to show what hypocites they are......this goes far beyond a racial slur.

[MadBadger]

21. How so?

[jus_the_facts]

29. Oh let's see...shredding a man for using a racial slur..then a week later showing a mass murderer's

....offensive rantings 24/7...what's so hard to understand?

[JitterbugPerfume]

22. I voted no

I can not imagine how painful it is for the families of the dead , including his family.

But that is not the reason I oppose it. I oppose it because the video just sensationalises the situation even more than it already was. as far as I am concerned , the media is just playing into his hands.

[DFLforever]

75. Exactly.

[EFerrari]

24. Yes. We need to confront our miserable failure in the area

of treating mental illness even though we have the best (undelivered) technology in the world.

The argument that it somehow "gives him what he wants" or "makes him a hero" is absurd. The kid is dead. He doesn't want anything any more.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. I completely agree with you.

We cannot hide from this issue any longer. We need to see exactly what really lies beneath seemingly stoic time-bombs like this. We need to address the fact that this person was allowed to withdraw from mental health treatment, primarily because the system is stretched far too thin as it is and because there is no funding for ongoing treatment of the TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans that need it each day.

Do you know we put over 2,000 kids in jail EVERY SINGLE DAY, not because they did anything wrong whatsoever, but because that's the only method available for handling children with mental illnesses?
http://www.bazelon.org/newsroom/archive/2004/7-7-04jjhearing.htm

[EFerrari]

112. Vash! We agreed on something!

lol

:)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

114. THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US!!

:-) :hug: :bounce: :party:

[EFerrari]

120. I'm about to agree with Tahiti Nut. If I see The Magistrate today

I'm buying a lottery ticket!

lol

:party:

[KittyWampus]

62. So you get to decide Cho is going to be the poster boy for mental illness? Networks?

In other words you are using this to fill an agenda of yours just as the networks are using it to make ratings.

Both cases are unbalanced and ultimately have NOTHING to do with informing the public of necessary information.

[EFerrari]

113. I don't work in programming; I offered an opinion and rationale. n/t

[cwydro]

27. kicking again

I hope everyone votes.

[cwydro]

33. ...

:kick:

[FrenchieCat]

36. On the one hand they don't allow photos of coffins coming back from Iraq.....

But a dead Mental lunatic's rants shown over and over again is supposed to help us determine what, exactly?

Same goes with the Anna Nicole Smith "Who gets the body" circus trial of last month!

Yet, unless you were on the Internet or have cable C-Span3 (which I do not), we were not even able to watch the testimony of the Attorney General......and many of us will have to wait until this week-end when it is reran on C-Span!

Go figure! :eyes:

[JitterbugPerfume]

37. Actually I am

of two minds about this

The right to know versus yellow journalism.

There is a very fine line

[Renew Deal]

39. Yes

I oppose censorship.

[Flarney]

52. It's not censorship, it's about not telling potential killers that they can have all the air time...

...they want so long as they kill enough people. Showing that kid's material only provides incentive for similarly disturbed people to commit mass murder.

[Renew Deal]

74. Of course it's censorship

I don't need someone to tell me what I can see and what I can't see. I can handle it on my own. People don't become killers because they are inspired by other killers. They become killers because they are seriously fucked up, and no video is going to make a difference.

[Flarney]

96. Well...

I certainly agree that it's not for me to tell you or anyone what they should see...and I never suggested it was an issue of whether or not you can handle it. You really don't think that rewarding the killer with all the air time he could have hoped for does nothing to encourage copycats? Anyway, there's no sense in beating this to death (questionable choice of words, but you can handle it. :-) ) I'll just say that if it was my network I would not have broadcast that stuff just for ratings. Doing so in that fashion served no other purpose than satisfying everyone's morbid curiosity.

[JackRiddler]

40. Ethical, moral or business decision?

In our society, the last is often taken as one of the former.

NBC could have taken one picture, shown it at low resolution, and described the other contents of the package factually. As the second or third story of the day, providing a few minutes. They could keep a copy, then turn it over to the cops.

Instead they gave him the full coverage as top-plus story, included the text of his "manifesto" so that anyone taping it could read it, released all of the stills and much of the video. And they used the imagery as their icons.

The broadcast of so much of the material amounts to a glorification - he's a supervillain, a comic book character, a myth. Without a doubt it will encourage future timebombs to do the same.

A timebomb is created by heredity and environment, to be sure; it's not the media that make people violent, psychotic, or dangerous. It is the media that is now providing the ideas, the model, the how-to, the fashion tips, the incentive, the encouragement: the glory.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. Stunningly Poor Judgement

Every mentally disturbed individual in the United States now knows they can get their video on national television (who the hell needs YouTube?) and all they have to do is find a large pool of victims and start blazing away.

I can't believe that nobody at NBC thought this was an astonishingly bad idea.

[Ignacio Upton]

42. Not immediately

They should have stated on air that he sent him a package, then wait a few weeks to release the contents. Things need to cool down before you do something like that.

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

44. not just no

please edit your poll to include a FUCK NO option.

[cwydro]

45. I heard Fox

has said they are going to stop showing the video. Apparently, a backlash is beginning.

[MurrayDelph]

47. While it does not "legitimize" him

it definitely gives him the attention he was after. And sends a message to other sick fucks that
this is a way to become infamous.

Near the end of his life, the Isaac Asimov books pretty much sucked. But one thing one of
his characters suggested was to refer to these sickos as (something like) "Joe Idiot #3"

[libnnc]

48. I think they have the right to report and describe the content

of the videos immediately, but should have held off actually showing them for a while.

At least until the victims were all laid to rest.

[windy252]

49. I myself

didn't think it was terrible, but thought they sure overdid it. It managed to get my mother, who usually doesn't get angry about anything, angry enough to attempt to send an email to MSNBC.

[bigwillq]

50. Yes

It's a huge part of the story that shields some light on why he decided to do what he did.
They're just reporting the news in all their glorified fashion.

However, we can choose not to watch it.

[cwydro]

53. another

kick.

[Kelly Rupert]

54. No need to give him a soapbox, other than ratings. n/t

[Truthbeknown]

56. They made a very poor and insensitive decision

If the producer had a family member who was a victim, he might have thought twice and released the story of the mailing, but not the video, pictures and rant. There was no reason to. They are the ramblings of a mentally ill killer, a madman.

[mondo joe]

80. It's the NEWS. It's not a support group. If the producer was personally involved he or she should

have stepped aside so someone without a conflict of interest could handle it.

[mark414]

57. i voted no. but i believe it should be readily available to the public.

the way it was carried out was tasteless, sensational, and insensitive to the victims.

this guy wanted his fame and his 15 minutes...why give it to him? he doesn't deserve the recognition

[MadBadger]

59. So maybe put it on msnbc.com?

[high density]

64. These stupid fucks at the news stations need to watch NETWORK again

The guy was obviously a total loon. I watched the video that NBC aired and it didn't seem much different than those stupid Osama videos they loved to show us once upon a time. I didn't get any information or "news" from it beyond what I already knew (i.e. that the guy was crazy.) Brian Williams wins the hypocritical spin of the year award for saying that NBC was being cautious, while at the same time plugging "see more video tomorrow on the Today show! Tee heee!!!"

I don't give a crap what they air because I don't usually watch it, but I can't believe the apparent wall to wall coverage over this incident. A glance at the major "news" websites makes me think the entire state of Virgina was blown up or something. Where's the coverage for every 30 soldiers that get killed over in Iraq, or how about the Iraqis themselves that get blown up dozens at a time?

[MadBadger]

68. Looks like the numbers are holding around 59-40-1.

[earth mom]

71. I don't want anyone-especially corporate bastards like NBC-censoring what I get to see or know about

I want to know what Cho's reasons were, especially since he apparently criticized the rich. Not showing the tape screams "COVER UP" to me and makes me think that because it probably doesn't show the rich, the media or the government in a very favorable light, TPTB wants it swept under the carpet. :grr:

[MadBadger]

72. KO will talk about NBC's decision within the next 3 minutes.

[ComerPerro]

76. profit-wise? Hell yes. Morally? I dont' think that ever came into the picture.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. Of course they did

They should have shown the whole thing, uninterrupted.

[napi21]

78. I'm glad they showed them because I wanted to try to understand

what it is in our culture that causes people to reach for a gun as their first defense against anger and depression.

I've seen many stats that show the US leads the rest of the civilized world in gun deaths by a very large percentage. Each time there is another one, I want to hear everything I can to try to determine why we as a culture respond so violently.

[mondo joe]

79. Absolutely. It was part of the news story. This is the news - not Big Mother.

That is all.

[Maru Kitteh]

83. YES, absolutely, yes.

In absence of full disclosure (they need to release the entire contents at some point) you can only invite speculation and conspiracy theories.

[LisaL]

84. I think it's just glorifies this guy and encourages copy cats.

Do you all know how many isolated, lonely, unstable people are out there? What if after watching these they decide to go out in a blaze of glory?

[Maru Kitteh]

89. Well then, what if we roll the standards back and broadcast nothing but

Pre-Brady Bunch shows and keep all of our "newscasts" clean, sanitary and calm?


That to me is a nightmare of far greater consequences.




Ignoring and/or censoring this disturbed young man's diatribe is like hoping your cancer will just "go away".

[Little Wing]

118. disagree on the glorification - agree on the copy cats

[Cobalt Violet]

88. Yes.

[Laurier]

91. Yes.

Censoring it would have been a far worse decision. We clamor for information, news junkies that we are, and as keen on instant access to information as we are. This was strictly news, and has no "national security" or "intelligence" or "protection of privacy" overtones to it, so it would be pretty difficult to argue that censoring it would be justifiable. Had they refused to show it, I suspect that the public at large would be going apeshit over the refusal.

[Oeditpus Rex]

92. Absolutely

The elements of the five W's and the H that people want most to know are "how" and "why." The video and accompanying documents are probably the most telling evidence as to "why" there'll ever be.

What NBC did wrong was to give the video and documents to the FBI. When a journalistic entity assists police or the courts other than to provide descriptions of wanted suspects, it blurs the line between its job and theirs.

[piedmont]

93. I support showing it, but NOT being so f'ing ghoulish about it. nt

[slackmaster]

98. It is their right to run them - and IMO it was a poor business decision

I haven't tuned them in once since I heard about the whole thing.

[youthere]

101. I don't think they should have spent so much airtime on it...

they should have just given a "summary" of what it said, and made the actual photos and transcript available on line for those who wanted to pursue it.

[NoPasaran]

102. If they hadn't been shown

There would already be a dozen conspiracy theories about what was really on them and why that evil MSM was covering them up.

At least one of the theories would include Karl Rove.

[paparush]

103. Harris and Kleibold

Their 'basement tapes' were not immediately released to the public, but shown privately to victim's families and news media, then sealed.

Granted, the Harris/Kleibold vids were not mailed directly to a major media outlet, but, c'mon, how can NBC justify running Cho's stuff?

They basically gave him validation. Gave him the spotlight. All of those 'tough guy movie star' poses, straight off of a hollywood movie covers, are going to impact some other deeply disturbed young man, and make it easier for him to commit more violence against innocents.

[HuffleClaw]

105. news should be reported. its just that simple.

EVERYTHING else is censorship, no matter the 'justification'

[mondo joe]

115. Indeed. How much have we complained about the censorship of coffins coming

back frmo Iraq, or soldierfunerals, or even real news from the war?

[slj0101]

108. I thought it was a hasty decision.

It is definitely news, but the fact that it aired just a day or two after the shootings was crass. But then again, what would you expect, decorum? Pshaw, right....

[Rob H.]

109. No

It strikes me as rank sensationalism and whoring for ratings.

[MadBadger]

110. Yes side has closed the gap a little.

[MonkeyFunk]

116. Yes I do

it's not their job to protect me from reality. Their job is to PRESENT reality to me - my TV, like all others, has an off button if I don't want to see it.

[Virginia Dare]

119. I have such distrust for the MSM that I believe that anything they do..

is merely self serving, so I voted no. I think they could have given it at least a few days, out of respect for the victims, many of whom are still in the hospital, and their families. I also think that it was what Cho wanted, so they just played right into his own self-serving goals, at the expense further of the victims.

I hope they will donate every cent that they received for distributing that video to the victims' families.

[BuyingThyme]

121. I think the corporate media and government should decide what we see.

:silly: