|
i would simply point again to my posts above where i tried to lay out arguments as to why it was a good idea to show the footage.
i do this because i think the arguments have not taken into account in subsequent posts: where does this "responsibility" lie and what does it entail? there is no agreement about how "responsibility" is to be framed in a situation like this.
responsibility on whose part and relative to whom?
that violence reduced to film footage is entertainment is not in question.
that this fact generates its own layer of ambiguity to *any* "news" coverage is also given.
but these statements hold across the board, are characteristics of the medium itself and of any relation to it characterized by spectatorship in a context dominated by repetition (of footage 1 ["action sequence" or "action sequence involving grief"] over news period x in the context of a 24 hour "news" outlet, say)
but left at this level, what this position entails is a claim that because there is no information, only entertainment, the "responsible" thing to do in such a context is essentially to create holes in the information stream. so that the index of a situation understood as "tragedy"=>a black screen.
if you take the possiblity of some nimrod deciding that (a) what really matter once you are dead is that you are famous and (b) this going-out-in-a-fiery-malestrom" seems like a good way to achieve this objective, then not providing information seems the surest way to invite that response simply because you leave the event entirely open to interpretations based on projection.
at this point, the argument segues into what i posted above and i wont retype it all. my posts are too long anyway. the upshot of it is that showing cho's footage, and by doing that making his motivations as particular as possible, showing the fucked up frame of reference he brought to bear on his own actions, would seem to me a way to *decrease* the likelihood that others would see in what he did a glorious matyrdom. and if that is anything like the case, then it would have been irresponsible for the networks NOT to show the footage. this action would probably have a more coherent effect in undermining the possiblity of copycat actions (i hate that term, but i am sure that no-one cares) than any number of campus shows of "security" which are effected by placing more uniformed bodies arbitrarily around buildings.
information is not therapy. it is not an element within a therapeutic situation. a therapeutic situation is quite specific. as cynical as i am about television as a medium, i just dont see any requirement at all, from any angle, that can or should militate for a conflation of television-based infotainment and a therapeutic function.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|