All Blog Posts from Public Eye

The debate over the media's handling of the Seung-hui Cho manifesto continued over the weekend – CNN's "Reliable Sources," for example, devoted its first two segments to whether the media did the right thing in airing the materials.

There is one way of looking at this issue I have yet to see get much attention, however, and it has to do with what we allow in our culture and what we suppress. Those who object to the airing over the video, such as Hugh Hewitt, have called doing so "reprehensible" and suggested that "NBC will have blood on its hands the next time someone sends a video to their network of their mayhem."

That's certainly a valid position, but I have to wonder about its implications. The manifesto, no matter what you think of it, had news value – it was the last communication from the killer at the center of a huge story. You may feel, as Hewitt does, that the pictures and video didn't really tell us anything, but that's a subjective judgment; I do feel that my understanding of Cho's motivations was enhanced by what I saw, and so, presumably, do people like Dave Cullen, who wrote an insightful piece in Slate comparing Cho to the Columbine killers.

There is, then, something to be gained from the release of the materials, just as there is, potentially, something to be lost. It strikes me that that's more than can be said for some of our more violent cultural products – movies, video games, and television shows that glorify violence in much the same manner Cho seems to have wanted to. (It's worth noting here that Cho was apparently inspired, in part, by the movie "Oldboy.")

If, as a culture, we want to suppress the Cho manifesto, than we have to ask ourselves what else we are willing to suppress. After all, the Cho materials at least had some value beyond entertainment; it's harder to say the same for cultural products like "Grand Theft Auto" or "300." It seems to me that anyone criticizing NBC News for releasing the materials – and CBS News and its counterparts for airing them – should be thinking long and hard about how far down that path they are willing to go.

It's notable that the latest development to push the Virginia Tech story forward is a debate over whether or not media outlets should have aired the video and pictures that last moved it forward.

All three newscasts led last night with a note about the growing controversy over the media's choice to run materials from Seung-hui Cho's self-glorifying manifesto. On the "Evening News," anchor Katie Couric opened the show by saying this: "A lot of reaction today to that video message from the Virginia Tech shooter – angry reaction aimed at news outlets, including this one, for airing portions of it. CBS News plans to use this video only on a limited basis, and only when we feel it's necessary to tell the story."

The vast majority of the emails I've received have condemned CBS and other media outlets for showing the video, and today brings a fresh round of stories on criticism of media outlets for doing so. One typical missive in the Public Eye inbox begins like this: "Airing Cho's video was inappropriate, unnecessary and malevolent. Sometimes network news staffs need to think less with their wallets and more with their heads."

One aspect of the debate that's been largely lost in all this is the fact that we're not seeing a large portion of the materials Cho sent to NBC News. As Jack Shafer noted in Slate, "Cho mailed NBC News about two dozen QuickTime videos, of which the network has aired only a handful." The network has also held back some of Cho's photos and writings. Shafer characterizes this decision as "odd restraint," stopping just short of calling on NBC to release the whole shebang. "If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts," wrote Shafer. "If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes."

Another side of this debate that's gone missing – and I say this with nothing but respect and sadness for the Virginia Tech victims and their loved ones – is a sense of perspective. In the neighborhood of 200 people were killed in a single day this week in Iraq, a fact that has been treated as little more than a footnote in the flood of Virginia Tech coverage.

Read full post…

In an email this morning, CBS News Vice President Paul Friedman instructed staff not to use the Cho video without the approval of an executive producer. He also wrote that stills from the video should be used sparingly.

"In no case do we want this video to be used as wallpaper, in much the same way we did not want to use the video of the planes going into the World Trade Center or the buildings coming down," wrote Friedman.

This morning, the video and pictures were all over the CBSNews.com homepage. You could watch the video in the upper left hand corner of the site, and slightly further down on the right side; a large Flash slideshow of Cho's disturbing photos of himself ran in the middle of the page. As of this afternoon, the shooting is the lead story, but the video links are gone from the homepage, and the focus is now on the victims. That's by design, says CBSNews.com Editorial Director Dick Meyer.

"We felt we needed to make it prominent during one news cycle, because we have some readers who are primarily at-work users and they may not have had a chance to see it," said Meyer. "By mid-morning it didn't need to be smack dab in the middle. We're certainly sensitive to how disturbing it is."

I asked Meyer if it really mattered how prominently CBSNews.com showcased the video, since it is so easy for anyone who wants to find the video to do so.

"From a practical standpoint, no, it doesn't matter for most news consumers," said Meyer. "By this morning, it was omnipresent. It was omnipresent for savvy Web users by 8:15 last night."

Read full post…

By now, you've probably seen the disturbing pictures and video that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-hui Cho sent to NBC News. The debate has already begun as to whether NBC News, as well as the rest of the media, should have broadcast the killer's final message.

"[W]hat is the possible journalistic explanation for splashing Cho's self-dramatizing poses and self-justifying b------t over network and cable air?," wrote Harry Shearer at the Huffington Post, adding: "Cho's pathetic outpourings deserved to be put back where they came from--in a small room, with FBI guys sentenced to read/see and parse them. Instead, a hundred thousand self-pitying mentally ill young men (and women?) have just been shown the road to glory one more time."

An emailer to TVNewser, menwhile, defends the NBC decision.

"NBC News is taking enormous heat for airing and sharing the video and photos tonight," wrote the emailer. "People do not understand the journalistic obligation to do so. The business has itself to blame for people's lack of understanding because it has blurred the line between news and sensational news/entertainment. All of us who are serious about journalism need to defend a news organization's right and obligation to do what NBC did."

Soon after NBC News aired the video, some commenters denounced the decision to do so on the network's Web site. Wrote one: "I am totally appalled that NBC News has chosen to broadcast the videos of a psychopath according to his wishes and thereby possibly encourage other disturbed individuals to attempt to gain infamy through similar or copycat acts. I find this to be irresponsible and particularly disrespectful to the families of the victims."

NBC News reportedly spent "hours" debating whether or not to release the materials, which included a rambling, 1,800-word letter, and how much to release if they did. "We tried to be sensitive to the families involved and to the investigation," NBC News President Steve Capus told Howard Kurtz. Capus said that while some may be troubled by the network's decision to give Cho the platform he sought, "they also may say, 'We want to know why. We need to know what was in his head, what drove him to do this.' This is a portrait of a killer."

Read full post…

The Asian American Journalist Association is calling on news outlets "to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason" when identifying the Virginia Tech suspect.

Says the Association: "There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people. The effect of mentioning race can be powerfully harmful. It can subject people to unfair treatment based simply on skin color and heritage."

We now know the suspect was 23-year-old Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui, who yesterday was being identified only as a "young Asian male." In a press release, CBS News initially referred to him as Sueng-hui Cho. The discrepancy comes from the fact that Korean surnames are listed first, while in America they appear at the end of a name. CBS News is now referring to the suspect as Cho Seung-Hui, which follows the Korean tradition.