The hilariousness of NBC’s flailing efforts to defend its exploitation of the Virginia Tech murders to make money demands some comment. What was the news value of broadcasting Seung-Hui Cho’s emotional plea for a national ban on private ownership of hand guns after he had killed himself? Virtually none. What was the commercial value? A great deal. NBC’s logo, at the bottom of the footage, was shown on virtually every news outlet in the country. It was a powerful nationwide corporate branding exercise — albeit one that may not work out so well over the long term, now that grief-stricken family members have called the stunt for what it was.
NBC should be honest and admit it ran the videos to make money. They should stop trying to hide behind the “public interest” excuse. Does anyone still seriously argue that media companies are anything other than companies? Broadcasters and journalists play the same role in our society as any other corporation and its employees — to provide a service and make money. Some manage with more grace and distinction, and some with less. To claim, however, that they have some other purpose denies common sense and the evidence of our own daily observation, and just makes them look silly.
I understand that it isn’t news, it’s show business. And that business has to make a profit. Sometimes the methods make a decent person want to gag. The level of attention focused upon the perpetrator in this crime made me feel that the media wanted to get another unbalanced person to imitate the deed.
<
p>
Larry King seemed to sum up the tastelessness of the media. He asked someone, “How would you rate this?” Answer: “Somewhere between Columbine and…”
<
p>
Why not have a row of judges with numbers as in the Olympics?
<
p>
Then the lowest ebb was when the weasel-word fellow, John Keller, announced that the Boston NBC channel wasn’t going to play the Cho videos as the producer thought it was in “poor taste”. They had already broadcast the videos twice and it was old news now. They then announced viewers could go to the WBZ web site to see them, however.
<
p>
It constantly amazes me how the media can get anyone to interview with them. “How do you feel now that your loved one was shot down?” “Quick! Zoom in on the teary eye!”
<
p>
Does anyone remember the Boston newscaster that some years ago remarked, “Now we break for a commercial and I will continue to more alleged news.” He disappeared. So much for speaking the truth to make you free.
<
p>
…avoid acknowledging the fact that they exist to make money.
<
p>
The hilariousness of NBC’s flailing efforts to defend its exploitation of the Virginia Tech murders to make money demands some comment.
<
p>
CNN International (which we get here in Munich) has been flogging the VA Tech story (mostly but not entirely sans the NBC videos) all week. Much like other cable channels have been flogging the story of Knut, the cute little polar bear that was recently born at the Berlin zoo (the Munich zoo wanted to get into the action since the grandmother of the bear is there). 15 minutes of fame, then nothing. Same with Cho. But the cable channels pound the stories to death until they get boring, after which they go onto something else to pound to death. It’s almost as if they have a “play list” that they rotate constantly–like the “top 40” radio stations of old.
<
p>
Es geht nur ums Gelt. It’s only a matter of money.
You can argue all day about whether airing the Cho video and pictures was the responsible thing to do. “On the Media” has a particularly good interview with media theorist Thomas de Zengotita on that very subject this week.
<
p>
But to argue that images and statements from the worst mass murderer in American history aren’t news? Well, I guess you’d have to be … Bob.
<
p>
Here’s my view.
At least we know where you stand, Dan. I suppose the lowest common denominator does need someone to speak for them. Good to see you were able to pimp the murders for some airtime, though. At least you’re consistent.
Dan is correct, and you are wrong. Cho obviously sent the material to a broadcaster for the intention that they be broadcast. The broadcast material was interesting in the fact that it gave some insight into the mindset of the perp. Was it “news”? Most definitely yes.
<
p>
Your comment reminds me of the issue of about a dozen years ago: whether the pictures that were taken at the Simpson murder scene should be published (there were some that had been taken). To spare the tender sensibilities of the US viewers, apparently they were not shown in the US. But they were published in Der Spiegel here in Germany. Were they relevant to the story? Most definitely yes.
<
p>
The Cho pictures and videos were going to get distributed, whether or not NBC did it officially.
“Cho obviously sent the material to a broadcaster for the intention that they be broadcast.”
<
p>
Are you really arguing that the intentions of one of the worst criminals in U.S. history are germane? Who cares what his intentions were.
<
p>
“Was it “news”? Most definitely yes.”
<
p>
Sure it was news, but that doesn’t mean they have to play the tapes. They could just report what he said, for example.
<
p>
OJ Simpson
<
p>
With respect, I think this example actually supports my point, not yours.
<
p>
The Cho pictures and videos were going to get distributed, whether or not NBC did it officially.
<
p>
The “everybody does it” argument. German history should teach you that is not always the best way to determine right and wrong.
…because I don’t agree with you at all.
<
p>
Just one example.
<
p>
Sure it was news, but that doesn’t mean they have to play the tapes. They could just report what he said, for example.
<
p>
I suppose that NBC News could have provided a 1000 word description of the pictures and a transcript. But a picture is worth a thousand words and the transcript does not give the inflection of the speaker. Do you understand the difference? That’s one reason why, although I find transcripts interesting, I don’t find them definitive.
<
p>
You admit that it was likely that the photos and video would have been released, at least over the Internet, so why was NBC wrong to be the first to release them? Because they were the first? Give me a break.
<
p>
Regarding the pictures of the OJ crime scene, published by Der Spiegel, it gave an indication of the horrificness (is that a word?) of the incident. Your rejoinder suggests that you believe that, for example, CNN and other TV broadcasters should not have broadcast pictures of the TWC twin towers collapsing. Is that what you really believe? That was another crime scene. Where do you draw the line?
I accept there is a difference between pictures and words đŸ™‚ I don’t think that means that every picture should be broadcast. I think the “someone else will do it anyway” argument has very little weight when it comes to assessing questions of right and wrong. For sure, this is a “line drawing” matter. My assessment is there was little, if any, news value in the clips — they were the ravings of a murderous psychopath — and much harm to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people (everyone with a connection to the Virgina Tech victims) from the broadcast. In this case, I’d draw the line and say NBC should have reported that they had received them and what they said, not broadcast them or the pictures, and turned all the material over to law enforcement. They would have made less money, but the journalists involved would have preserved their dignity.
Bob: Your refusal to actually read what I’ve written (or just to ignore what I’ve written) before attacking me is quite remarkable. You will note that in my brief comment above, I write that though the Cho materials were obviously newsworthy, showing them was not necessarily the responsible thing to do. How on earth is your ad hominem retort even vaguely responsive to that observation?
<
p>
In the post to which I link, I argue that NBC was right to air the materials as part of its evening newscast, but that I was offended by their immediate, decontextualized reuse as video wallpaper by the three cable news networks. I point this out because not all of your readers necessarily followed the link to my site. BMG readers need to understand the depth of your intellectual dishonesty.
Dan, I am struggling to understand your argument.
<
p>
In paragraph 1 above you write of the Cho manifesto videos, “showing them was not necessarily the responsible thing to do.” In paragraph 2 you write, “NBC was right to air the materials as part of its evening newscast.” How can these two statements be reconciled.
<
p>
I am glad that we agree that the subsequent, “decontextualized reuse as video wallpaper by the three cable news networks,” which I think is a nice turn of phrase, was appalling.