Virginia Tech Tragedy (this thread is NOT for the debate of "gun control")

[Elphaba]

I was fairly certain a schizo-affective disorder was in play, but after seeing the NBC video of his rant, I think this may be full blown paranoid schizophrenia. If so, there would be years of diagnostic symptoms that should have been identified and treated. Perhaps this could have been prevented, which increases the tragedy in my mind.

[uncle phil]

quicky correction - charles whitman did all his crazy shit on august 1, 1966...

quicky question - what dumbass at nbc decided that it was alright to put that video on the airwaves for hundreds of thousands of impressionable teenagers and other assorted whack-jobs to see? someone has taken leave of his senses, common and otherwise!

[ShaniFaye]

It seems to me there were a lot of people asking "why" and now they are mad at the messenger that had the answer to the question

[roachboy]

i agree with shani on this, but would go further:

my reaction to information about/clips and images from cho's video and the accompanying manifesto was the opposite of uncle phil's above...the massacre was obviously disturbing in itself and it follows that anything remotely like an "explanation"--especially particularlized through cho himself in full regalia doing a kind of pantomime of "terrorist" videos--was also bound to be disturbing. but i think it absolutely should have been shown.

the persecution/martyrdom complex at the center of it is pretty obviously pathological, but not everything that cho processed through this complex was or is.
he in a way held up a very disturbing mirror that shows a combination of broad socio-political problems that are endemic to the american socio-economic order AND a very particular image of an individual who reacted in an incoherent, inarticulate and ultimately murderous way to these problems...these two general elements were self-evidently tangled up in a bizarre way as a function of his particular psychological state.
if there is a problem with this, then, it lay in the fact that the "explanation" simply compounds ambiguity--what are "we" (viewers, readers, spectators in general) supposed to do with this information?
on the other hand, what were "we" expecting? something to make us feel better about this? from the guy who did the killing? how is that reasonable? the action was obviously inspired by the possibility of giving all of us something that COULD NOT be resolved into anything that made any of us feel better about anything.

but the information should nonetheless have been aired: information has no necessary therapeutic function for those who take it in. there is no such requirement, nor should there be one.

there's another way of seeing this as well: if the concern really is copycat actions, it would seem to me that they would be *more* likely to happen the *less* information about cho is out there--this because the less information that is made available, the greater the space for projections about him--and it seems to me that the condition of possibility for copycat action is projection--what another fucked up kid might IMAGINE to have been the motives and how that imagining could leave out as much as it includes such that an equivalent action might seem to make sense. showing cho himself would seem to me to erase something of that space for projection.

there's more to say, but i'll leave this here for now.

[analog]

Originally Posted by hagatha

Analog, I have to completely disagree with you when you say "stalking has nothing to do with homocide" ---it HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOCIDE.
Do you know how many women are killed or assaulted by their abusive partners who stalk them after they leave because they dared to usurp their control?
Can you say restraining order?
And this guy was stalking women he never dated....he was stalking women online and subsequently at the university. And the cops had been notified.
So yes, there were huge flags going up around this guy...even his english prof was afraid of him and had notified campus police.

Is "homocide" the killing of gay people, or something? Because I'm talking about homicide. (/sarcasm)

Moving on, I stand by my original assertion. Stalking is not about homicide. Stalking is about coveting, and it's about obsession. Often, it's part of a larger scheme within the mind of the stalker. They want to know everything the other person is doing for purposes of controlling their life. This notion of "control" is totally separate from stalking, the stalking just because a tool to carry out the other portions of their psychoses.

Your example of men who are abusive and then stalk their female (ex-?) partners only links because who already have homicidal intentions, anger, and control issues, can also be stalkers.

What you're asserting is a logical fallacy of association, much like saying "all people who drive cars, drive Ford Mustangs" when in fact the correct statement would be, "All people who drive Ford Mustangs are driving cars."

No, stalking has nothing to do with homicide- that does not mean that stalking, in itself, cannot be yet another tool that controlling, dangerous people can employ.

Just because the psychological phenomenon of stalking includes coveting and obsession, and a person who has control issues and is homicidal happens to covet and obsess over someone, does not make the two mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

It seems to me there were a lot of people asking "why" and now they are mad at the messenger that had the answer to the question

Bravo, I agree.

Of course, I also believe that it ties in directly to what I was saying before; people refuse to believe that there is no "real" explanation, and they don't take psychological disorder as a real explanation.

They wanted a "why", what they got is precisely why, but the "why" is psychosis- paranoid delusions of persecution and martyrdom. Watching the tape is paranoid schizophrenia 101.

But no one wants to accept that people can do such a thing for "no reason" (chemical imbalance in the brain). They're looking for parents who beat him, they're looking for sexual assault as a child, they want a royally screwed-up past and bad upbringing to put a nice little bow on the whole thing.

Well, I'm sorry to say, there's no nice little bow going on this. The guy was mentally ill, and that's that. It did, in fact, happen for no reason whatsoever.

Can we all move on, now?

[Elphaba]

Roachboy, for the very reason that you stated that there was nothing for any of us to gain from this coverage, I take the opposite stand that this should not have been aired. Cho admired the Columbine killers and they had massive news coverage as well. Any wannabe's will also look to maximize the carnage to ensure greater coverage and now they know they can have their moment of righteous glory. If it were allowed, it would be pictures of Cho's blown off face aired to tell how these actions will always end.

Additionally, when does the media stop traumatizing the VT students and their families? What about other children across the country that are fearful and holding classes in lockdown? Nothing can support NBC's decision to air that crap, and it appears they have brought an uproar upon themselves for their choice.

[pig]

there is no bad publicity elph. sure, they'll take shit for it, but we'll be watching. we'll be watching their ads. we'll be checking to see if they put out a remix.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Roachboy, for the very reason that you stated that there was nothing for any of us to gain from this coverage, I take the opposite stand that this should not have been aired. Cho admired the Columbine killers and they had massive news coverage as well. Any wannabe's will also look to maximize the carnage to ensure greater coverage and now they know they can have their moment of righteous glory. If it were allowed, it would be pictures of Cho's blown off face aired to tell how these actions will always end.

Additionally, when does the media stop traumatizing the VT students and their families? What about other children across the country that are fearful and holding classes in lockdown? Nothing can support NBC's decision to air that crap, and it appears they have brought an uproar upon themselves for their choice.

Weird how it's really becoming Natural Born Killers.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by pigglet

there is no bad publicity elph. sure, they'll take shit for it, but we'll be watching. we'll be watching their ads. we'll be checking to see if they put out a remix.

I know you mean the universal "we", but I stopped watching broadcast news years ago for less reason than this.

Cynthetiq, I never saw Natural Born Killers so I don't understand your reference. Would you explain, please?

[roachboy]

elphaba: consideration for the families apart--which i underestimated yes---i dont see what you are saying. as for "going out in a final blaze of glory" as an idea, there are dozens upon dozens of films that outline the same logic, so it hardly seems plausible that the circuit of information upon which cho relied was restricted to what he said explicitly in his infotainment package.

the kids who murdered their neighbors at columbine didn't invent anything and they are hardly the only circuit through which someone who decides, for whatever fucked up reason they might develop, might get the idea to go out dillinger style. i would go further even and argue that one possible reason why cho was able to identify with these folk is because he was able to impute his own narrative to their actions, make them over in his own image: had infotainment of the same order been left by them, maybe showing that would have erased that possibility. but then again, maybe not. there's no way to know, really. so i only go on what seems logical to me.

at another level, there is a history of some 40 years now of people who find themselves in overwhelming assymterical political situations of routinized oppression who feel powerless and impotent and without recourse who have chosen to do blwo themselves up as a political act--with far more lucid explanations for why they acted so----and THOSE are the explanatory elements left behind that networks choose routinely not to air. THOSE you dont see. why? i would argue because the expressions of political views are lucid in some of them and so THESE would be the elements that might engender more instances of this type of action.


another way: i think that showing these clips would dissuade potential copycats simply because the kid was in the main incoherent, and showing the material functions to strip away whatever glamour one could possibly associate with this action. like i said, there is no way to say that everything cho reacted to was simply spun out of his head, at the same time the obviously pathological way in whcih he interpreted those elements seem to me to deflate any political significance he might have imputed to his own actions.

it doesnt really matter to me that among the results of showing it is the piling of ambiguity atop ambiguity. there is no way to avoid it in a situation like this--they do not have neat endings.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I know you mean the universal "we", but I stopped watching broadcast news years ago for less reason than this.

Cynthetiq, I never saw Natural Born Killers so I don't understand your reference. Would you explain, please?

An interesting movie. I haven't seen it in some time, but here is something from wikipedia

Back in the present the pair continue their crime-spree (which bears several parallels to Bonnie and Clyde), slaughtering their way across the southwest United States and ultimately claiming fifty-two victims. Following them are two characters who have an obsessive interest in Mickey and Mallory for the purposes of acquiring fame and glory, as well as furthering their own careers. The first is a policeman, Detective Jack Scagnetti (Sizemore), who is seemingly in love with Mallory. Scagnetti wants to achieve hero status by capturing the pair, though it is plainly revealed that Scagnetti has a lifelong obsession with serial killers after seeing his mother shot and killed by Charles Whitman when he was five. The second is journalist Wayne Gale (Downey) hosts a show called 'American Maniacs', profiling serial killers in a blatantly sensationalist way. Various clips of his program on Mickey and Mallory are shown, with Gale sounding outraged as he details the pair's crimes, although off-air he clearly regards their crimes as a fantastic way of boosting his show's ratings. It is Gale who is mostly responsible for elevating Mickey and Mallory into heroes, with his show featuring interviews with people expressing their admiration for the mass-killers as if they were film stars.

[Elphaba]

Thanks, Cyn. I also looked it up at imdb. Link

"The media made them superstars."

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Thanks, Cyn. I also looked it up at imdb. Link

"The media made them superstars."

exactly.

i've done my best to keep myself from getting sucked into it all. it's not been easy as today i snuck a peek at one of the videos of the young man. so i know he's asian and mental. I could have told you that from the headlines of the newspapers I walk past, The only thing that has been added i can tell you so far and he annunciates his words funny. whatever.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by uncle phil

quicky question - what dumbass at nbc decided that it was alright to put that video on the airwaves for hundreds of thousands of impressionable teenagers and other assorted whack-jobs to see? someone has taken leave of his senses, common and otherwise!

Anything for a buck in the media.

[Elphaba]

another way: i think that showing these clips would dissuade potential copycats simply because the kid was in the main incoherent, and showing the material functions to strip away whatever glamour one could possibly associate with this action. like i said, there is no way to say that everything cho reacted to was simply spun out of his head, at the same time the obviously pathological way in whcih he interpreted those elements seem to me to deflate any political significance he might have imputed to his own actions.

Roachboy, I agree with much of what you said so perhaps one of our differences is how we view the potential "wannabe" or the "copycat." I would argue that those that would be attracted by Cho's act are no longer relating to their world of upper middle class America, in a rational fashion. In this case, my thinking rests with an individual's irrational response to the cultural environment. Simply stated, it would not matter that Cho was logically incoherent to that specific group of people.

I believe you have extended the argument to other world cultures and circumstances, wherein the individual is making a rational response to an irrational environment. Am I close to the distinctions we are making? You express your thoughts far better that I do, and I continue to stumble my way toward clarity.

PS: Should I be concerned that I found coherence in Cho's diatribe?

[uncle phil]

roachboy, where do you come from?

[The_Jazz]

Am I the only one besides Phil that thinks that airing ANYTHING that Cho sent was foolhardy, wrongheaded and a major tactical error by NBC? We now have a road map for greivance airing for any nutjob with a gun/bomb/pipewrench and a camera. If I were the head of NBC News, I would have turned it over to the police/FBI/whoever and made a public statement that we'd done so and would not be used as a conduit for acts such as this.

As it is, NBC now looks like a bunch of tools. And yes, I mean to use the double meaning.

Cho may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid. Neither were the kids at Columbine. The next one that comes along (and there will be a next one, regardless of anything anyone does) will now have a way to live in infamy.

[roachboy]

elphaba: thanks for the kind words about the writing....

I believe you have extended the argument to other world cultures and circumstances, wherein the individual is making a rational response to an irrational environment.

yeah see therein lies what i take to be the central ambiguity about all this, the thing that makes folk uneasiest, the thing they want to see made to go away. in this case, i am inclined to think that without seeing the clips, there is a way in which an answer this question would become impossible as the matter would be undecidable. what you make of this at a certain level turns on how lucis you imagine cho to have been--the more lucid, the more a reaction to a pathological environment it can become. the less lucid he is understood to have been, the more problematic this move becomes.

emile durkheim wrote a book called "suicide" in the late 19th century--a sociologist--he posed an interesting question: given that we as humans are geared aroudn adaptation or accomodation of our context, how would we know if that context had become pathological? the implication is that we really wouldnt because our frame of reference would move along with the wider social context, to a significant extent. he points to spikes in suicide rates as an index--he posits a notion of anomie or sense of drift and displacement as a cause. this argument works best if the information you look at is aggregated, a simple numerical index because it implies that suicide can be seen as a reasonable response to an pathological environment.

can you say that an environment--a culture--is a single entity and so can be or not be pathological as a whole?
wouldn't it more or less always be the case that what this environment is is a function of the position you occupy within it, that from a position of being-dominated things would look one way while from a positin of domination it would look another? particularly if you think about the simple fact that not all positions shaped by domination explicitly involve the acts of domination--you might think about significant aspects of globalizing capitalism--from an american viewpoint, a middle class relatively stable american viewpoint, the system looks ok, while from that of someone working some shit job in one of these "free zones" it really is not ok. the midle-class viewpoint is contingent on all kinds of factors that amount to domination, but most folk do not participate in it or even see it...

so anyway, one result of thinking across aggregates like durkheim does is that it generates a sense of lucidity of motive behind the numbers of suicides. like these folk are the canaries in the mineshaft. it seems to me that this could easily get mapped onto a political framework IF the view of those who committ suicide are left as those which you construct across numerical indices.

things look otherwise if you go into the details.
that's another way of saying the same thing about why i think it was not a bad decision to show the footage.

this leaves aside network commercial considerations, not because i think the networks great guys, but because in this case i think it fine to make a separation between general interests and those which shaped this particular decision to air this stuff. but that could go either way, and i agree with what you said about it.

ps: no, i wouldnt be concerned...

=================
phil: where do i come from?
saturn.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Am I the only one besides Phil that thinks that airing ANYTHING that Cho sent was foolhardy, wrongheaded and a major tactical error by NBC? We now have a road map for greivance airing for any nutjob with a gun/bomb/pipewrench and a camera. If I were the head of NBC News, I would have turned it over to the police/FBI/whoever and made a public statement that we'd done so and would not be used as a conduit for acts such as this.

As it is, NBC now looks like a bunch of tools. And yes, I mean to use the double meaning.

Cho may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid. Neither were the kids at Columbine. The next one that comes along (and there will be a next one, regardless of anything anyone does) will now have a way to live in infamy.

Did you miss post #126?

[hagatha]

Originally Posted by analog

Is "homocide" the killing of gay people, or something? Because I'm talking about homicide. (/sarcasm)

Moving on, I stand by my original assertion. Stalking is not about homicide. Stalking is about coveting, and it's about obsession. Often, it's part of a larger scheme within the mind of the stalker. They want to know everything the other person is doing for purposes of controlling their life. This notion of "control" is totally separate from stalking, the stalking just because a tool to carry out the other portions of their psychoses.

And the extension of that is I will kill you so no one else will ever have you.
And I will kill our children for the same reason. And yes, stalking has everything to do with homicide--because when men kill their partners it is part of an overall cycle of control, of which stalking is one of the manifestations, taken to the next level, is death....

[/QUOTE]Your example of men who are abusive and then stalk their female (ex-?) partners only links because who already have homicidal intentions, anger, and control issues, can also be stalkers.
What you're asserting is a logical fallacy of association, much like saying "all people who drive cars, drive Ford Mustangs" when in fact the correct statement would be, "All people who drive Ford Mustangs are driving cars."

No, stalking has nothing to do with homicide- that does not mean that stalking, in itself, cannot be yet another tool that controlling, dangerous people can employ.[/QUOTE]

Which can lead to homicide if the perpetrator has a psychological break, which, unfortunately, happens a lot. The worse case scenario, VA Tech, the least worse, suicide.

[/QUOTE]Can we all move on, now?[/QUOTE]

No we can't, because unless we start to take mental health issues seriously, and begin to address them before the shootings begin, this will happen again, and again and again.....

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by analog

Bravo, I agree.

Of course, I also believe that it ties in directly to what I was saying before; people refuse to believe that there is no "real" explanation, and they don't take psychological disorder as a real explanation.

They wanted a "why", what they got is precisely why, but the "why" is psychosis- paranoid delusions of persecution and martyrdom. Watching the tape is paranoid schizophrenia 101.

But no one wants to accept that people can do such a thing for "no reason" (chemical imbalance in the brain). They're looking for parents who beat him, they're looking for sexual assault as a child, they want a royally screwed-up past and bad upbringing to put a nice little bow on the whole thing.

Well, I'm sorry to say, there's no nice little bow going on this. The guy was mentally ill, and that's that. It did, in fact, happen for no reason whatsoever.

Can we all move on, now?

why is it when someone does something bad one of the first things another person asks is something similar to "what did his parents do to them"

I did a lot of shit when I was younger (didnt kill anyone) but you know what? when I got myself straightened out the first thing I would tell anyone was it had nothing to do with my "parents" it was things and situations I put myself in....they didnt do it.

For all we know his parents may have been as scared or disturbed as other people were (and I mean teachers, female aquaintances etc)

[hulk]

On a note about the parent's influence, I advise anyone who thinks parents are always to blame to read the letter on this page.

I don't have much to add to this thread, only to say that it's our focus on violence and our belief that violence is increasing that brings about such events.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by roachboy

...in this case, i am inclined to think that without seeing the clips, there is a way in which an answer this question would become impossible as the matter would be undecidable. what you make of this at a certain level turns on how lucis you imagine cho to have been--the more lucid, the more a reaction to a pathological environment it can become. the less lucid he is understood to have been, the more problematic this move becomes.

In order to agree with you on this point, I would have to assume that the viewing public of broadcast news is at least as knowledgeable as you are and able to neutrally assess Cho's communication. My expectations may be to low, but I am certain that your expectation is to high.

Originally Posted by roachboy

...emile durkheim wrote a book called "suicide" in the late 19th century--a sociologist--he posed an interesting question: given that we as humans are geared aroudn adaptation or accomodation of our context, how would we know if that context had become pathological? the implication is that we really wouldnt because our frame of reference would move along with the wider social context, to a significant extent. he points to spikes in suicide rates as an index--he posits a notion of anomie or sense of drift and displacement as a cause. this argument works best if the information you look at is aggregated, a simple numerical index because it implies that suicide can be seen as a reasonable response to an pathological environment.

I fully agree with Durkheim's proposition as you presented it. I am unwilling to extend his theory of suicide to mass homicide. Suicide is the removal of self from the irrational environment; homicide requires a mindset that many others must die as well.

Originally Posted by roachboy

can you say that an environment--a culture--is a single entity and so can be or not be pathological as a whole?
wouldn't it more or less always be the case that what this environment is is a function of the position you occupy within it, that from a position of being-dominated things would look one way while from a positin of domination it would look another? particularly if you think about the simple fact that not all positions shaped by domination explicitly involve the acts of domination--you might think about significant aspects of globalizing capitalism--from an american viewpoint, a middle class relatively stable american viewpoint, the system looks ok, while from that of someone working some shit job in one of these "free zones" it really is not ok. the midle-class viewpoint is contingent on all kinds of factors that amount to domination, but most folk do not participate in it or even see it...

Well stated, and I agree that there is little uniformity of culture/environment in our country and others. Two blocks can make the difference between wealth and poverty. The relative sense of dominance and one's position on that continuum will relate to many other issues, but can't be assumed to be causative.

Originally Posted by roachboy

so anyway, one result of thinking across aggregates like durkheim does is that it generates a sense of lucidity of motive behind the numbers of suicides. like these folk are the canaries in the mineshaft. it seems to me that this could easily get mapped onto a political framework IF the view of those who committ suicide are left as those which you construct across numerical indices.

Again, this assumes a close relationship between suicide and homicide that extrapolates to the general or the particular.

Originally Posted by roachboy

things look otherwise if you go into the details.
that's another way of saying the same thing about why i think it was not a bad decision to show the footage.

But Cho is an individual, and therefore, a "detail" in a search for a wider context.

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

why is it when someone does something bad one of the first things another person asks is something similar to "what did his parents do to them"

I did a lot of shit when I was younger (didnt kill anyone) but you know what? when I got myself straightened out the first thing I would tell anyone was it had nothing to do with my "parents" it was things and situations I put myself in....they didnt do it.

For all we know his parents may have been as scared or disturbed as other people were (and I mean teachers, female aquaintances etc)

I agree, Shani. This young man's problems are clinical, rather than social in my opinion. A case of nature, with less emphasis on nurture. But the family situation is unknown to us, so we shouldn't try to be guessing either way.

[analog]

No one in this thread said anything about the parents being to blame, so I'm not sure where that line of commentary seems to be coming from. I said the general public is looking for it, not that there was anything to find.

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

why is it when someone does something bad one of the first things another person asks is something similar to "what did his parents do to them"

I have no idea, you'll have to ask the people who point those fingers. I'm similarly confused why it happens every time.

Though, to be fair, there are many psychological issues that people have that are largely developmental in nature and manifest themselves specifically because of things like abuse (sexual or physical), so it is in those circumstances that I may question the parents. But this is obvious, and has nothing to do with parents.

[hulk]

Just because nothing was said doesn't mean nobody was thinking about it, analog

[analog]

Originally Posted by hulk

Just because nothing was said doesn't mean nobody was thinking about it, analog

I was saying that because I thought my statements about "people looking for" were misconstrued as "I'm looking for".

[Pragma]

I know there's a lot of varying opinions about whether or not Cho's videos should have been shown, so I'll weigh in with mine. Two friends of friends were killed on Monday, I drove 550 miles yesterday to visit Blacksburg and say goodbye, and the media presence is overwhelming to use just one word. Smothering might be a better one.

You can't even breathe on campus without cameramen following you at the moment, let alone trying to grieve. Not all of the disturbed or unstable young kids will view the video as a call to arms, but I don't think it will dissuade any. The ones who are disturbed enough to do it will do it anyways, with or without the video.

That being said, if they're going to do it anyways, why show the video? Why not show the video? It's an incoherent rant from a very unstable young man, but it doesn't help the healing process at all. Nobody I know who has watched it was glad they've done so, not one person got something useful out of it. Either way, it's out - no putting it back in the bottle.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Pragma

It's an incoherent rant from a very unstable young man, but it doesn't help the healing process at all.

I take issue with this. We are not here to help you heal. We are here to give you the facts, even if you don't like them. That video is a material fact to this story. The networks ran it in one newscast, and now that they've done that, they're planning to severely limit showing any of it again - in other words, if an editor wants to use a clip from the video, he'd better have a damn good reason. I don't think they're being irresponsible here. I'm sorry that the video is disturbing -- - you won't get any argument from me on that. But sometimes disturbing things happen and it's unfortunately for all of us our job to tell you about them. Don't look to the news to heal yourself - you need to find your own way to heal.

[analog]

shakran is absolutely correct: if there's one thing, just one thing, that the news is NOT all about, and never has been, it's healing.

I'd bet you anything, though, that once the immediate grieving is over (I mean come on, it's only been a few days, we're jumping the gun if anyone thinks anyone is near close to "done" grieving), those that saw the video will at least have a "why".

It's the number one thing asked, screamed, yelled to the heavens- "why?"

This tells them why- and whether they acknowledge it now or not, they'll eventually see it at least gave them the "why" they were looking for.

[World's King]

The fuck wanted to be noticed.


He got noticed.



End of story.

[hiredgun]

To weigh in briefly on the matter of the press: the video is information and qualifies as news. It sheds light on a question that almost everyone has been asking, and the fact that its message is less than reassuring - that its explanation of the killer provides no solace for us - is no reason to ask that it be kept from public view.

I do empathize with Pragma's description of the physical media frenzy now surrounding the campus. I wish those journalists could show a little more restraint, though having never worked in media I can't particularly comment on what it takes to produce information and how that is reconciled with respecting people's right to a bit of distance and privacy.

[mixedmedia]

But the news has not always been about invading the privacy of those who are grieving. Even though this "we" may like to watch it...I think it's loathsome and I'm not surprised that those who support this kind of media hoopla don't even address that when responding to Pragma's post.

And I'm not particularly inclined to believe that anyone is looking for "answers" or a way to heal from this when they watch the news. They are looking for distraction and information and then they go and share that information with other people who are also looking for distraction and information. It's called gossip.

Or we can just keep considering ourselves more "well-informed" or "better off."

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by analog

No one in this thread said anything about the parents being to blame, so I'm not sure where that line of commentary seems to be coming from. I said the general public is looking for it, not that there was anything to find.



I have no idea, you'll have to ask the people who point those fingers. I'm similarly confused why it happens every time.

Though, to be fair, there are many psychological issues that people have that are largely developmental in nature and manifest themselves specifically because of things like abuse (sexual or physical), so it is in those circumstances that I may question the parents. But this is obvious, and has nothing to do with parents.

Sorry, didnt meant to imply you had said it, I just meant "in general" lots of people "other places" have been having that rant for a few days

[Pragma]

Originally Posted by shakran

I take issue with this. We are not here to help you heal. We are here to give you the facts, even if you don't like them. That video is a material fact to this story. The networks ran it in one newscast, and now that they've done that, they're planning to severely limit showing any of it again - in other words, if an editor wants to use a clip from the video, he'd better have a damn good reason. I don't think they're being irresponsible here. I'm sorry that the video is disturbing -- - you won't get any argument from me on that. But sometimes disturbing things happen and it's unfortunately for all of us our job to tell you about them. Don't look to the news to heal yourself - you need to find your own way to heal.

Sorry for being vague on that respect then, I didn't mean that people are looking to the news to heal - it's just hard to do so much as venture out in public without being blanketed at all times by the images. Seeing the video get aired was also not a fun experience for a lot of people. Either way, I didn't mean to offend and I apologize. I'm a little too close to the issue to talk about it rationally, so I'll just lurk in this thread.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by World's King

The fuck wanted to be noticed.


He got noticed.



End of story.

Herein lies the problem of showing the video.
Talking about him so much on the news.
Showing so many pictures of him.
Calling him by his first name as if they know him (this was being done on CNN).

Just lie The_Jazz said

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The next one that comes along (and there will be a next one, regardless of anything anyone does) will now have a way to live in infamy.

Why does someone do something like this?
I am thankful that I don't really get it but aside from revenge I am positive that those who do this do it to be noticed...to be remembered...for infamy.

Anyone contemplating such an act now knows that they will be a celebrity. The world woll take notice. Their name will be read over and over again. People will try to find reason in the actions taken and, as a result if reasons are surmized, give creedence at some level to these actions.

What should we do in these cases?
I am not sure, but after mentioning the persons anme the first time on the air or in print maybe it should not be used again. Maybe just refer to the person as the killer or murderer.
Maybe after first showing the persons picture it should not be showed again and again.

Obviously it would have no effect on a past action after the fact but maybe if you eliminate one of attracting factors (to the potential perpetrators) for suchs actions fewer of them will be carried out.

Maybe.

This guy got everything he wanted once he decided what his course of cation was.
- He wanted revenge
- He wanted notoriety
- He wanted to end it all

Mission accomplished.

Lesson learnt by others potential perpetrators:
- You can get your revenge-
- You can get your notoriety
- You can end it

[ARTelevision]

The entire story and, even more, the images in question are published because they are great entertainment, particularly for the demographic groups that enjoy this type of thing enough to pay for it to be included in so much popular entertainment media content. Bloodlust and an infatuation with evil are some of the more predictable aspects of human psychology.

As for attempts to discuss contemporary media outlets as ever being motivated by a sense of personal, social, or cultural responsibility, they do appear as quite naive or simply motivated by urges of denial.

If there are some aspects of this situation novel enough to merit additional words, I would contribute to the discussion by saying it would be helpful if terms such as “rights, freedoms, free expression, and freedom of the press” were more generally regarded as operative only in contexts of personal, social, and cultural responsibility.

[Jinn]

He called himself "question mark." Can I go around calling myself "semi-colon" ?

[uncle phil]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

The entire story and, even more, the images in question are published because they are great entertainment, particularly for the demographic groups that enjoy this type of thing enough to pay for it to be included in so much popular entertainment media content. Bloodlust and an infatuation with evil are some of the more predictable aspects of human psychology.

As for attempts to discuss contemporary media outlets as ever being motivated by a sense of personal, social, or cultural responsibility, they do appear as quite naive or simply motivated by urges of denial.

If there are some aspects of this situation novel enough to merit additional words, I would contribute to the discussion by saying it would be helpful if terms such as “rights, freedoms, free expression, and freedom of the press” were more generally regarded as operative only in contexts of personal, social, and cultural responsibility.

hit the nail right on the freakin' head, art...thanks...

[shakran]

We really. . REALLY, need a multiquote button here

Originally Posted by analog

shakran is absolutely correct: if there's one thing, just one thing, that the news is NOT all about, and never has been, it's healing.

And to clarify, nor should it be. If something we show helps you heal, that's great, and trust me, not one of us in the media will begrudge that. However, our objective is not to heal, or to hurt you. It is to inform you. Sometimes information hurts, but the blame for that should be on the news maker, not the news reporter.

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I wish those journalists could show a little more restraint, though having never worked in media I can't particularly comment on what it takes to produce information and how that is reconciled with respecting people's right to a bit of distance and privacy.

I'm not there, so I can't really comment too much, but I do know some media types who are there. From what I'm hearing, the media IS being respectful. No one's chasing grieving students down the street. They give them the chance to talk - if they say no, then they say no. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking if a victim wants to talk. It would be crossing the line to keep harassing them after they say no, but to ask in the first place is fine. Believe it or not I've actually had people who found that talking to my camera, getting their story out, was cathartic. Shocked the crap out of me the first few times it happened, but it's actually not uncommon for that to occur.

As for what it takes to produce a story (remember we can't just spew information - we have to tell you the story in a way that you will remember it later), it takes getting in close. Here, if you're interested, check out this video. It's the 2007 National Press Photographers Association's large market station of the year.

http://www.nasites.net/projects/1296/largestation.asp

As you watch the stories, think about how much less of an impact there would be if the camera were kept at a "respectful distance." You just can't tell a good story with the camera always far away. But you can get in close without causing undue upset - it just takes thinking with your heart instead of your reporter's notebook. I've talked to people who's beloved pets have just (15 minutes ago) been killed by a tornado, I've talked to people who just found out their kid died in Iraq, I've talked to all sorts of people experiencing immediate personal tragedy, and I always make sure I don't do any more damage than has already been done.

Granted, not all journalists have the desire or the experience to pull this off, but there are crappy workers in every profession. You don't judge the entire banking industry because one teller can't add - nor should you judge the entire news industry based on the crappy actions of a few.

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

As for attempts to discuss contemporary media outlets as ever being motivated by a sense of personal, social, or cultural responsibility, they do appear as quite naive or simply motivated by urges of denial.

It is equally naive to assume that all of us are just out to produce entertaining tripe.

it would be helpful if terms such as “rights, freedoms, free expression, and freedom of the press” were more generally regarded as operative only in contexts of personal, social, and cultural responsibility.

OK. And what organization gets to decide when those freedoms can be applied then? Another way to ask that would be, how many government officials do you want on your Censorship Ministry?

[ARTelevision]

I agree some of us have a conscience and a sense of responsibility.


I have no professional relationship to organizations or government officials that have some power to create Censorship Ministries. I never speak as if I do. I possess very little significant information about such things.

Why would I feel responsible to address things I have not said?