Should the media cover massacres?

[GangStarr]

Considering the media has effectively banned reporting on suicides. Should this policy not extend to massacres?

I mean, the accused killer in the disgusting attacks on that Virginia school mailed a package full of media and pictures for the press. As terrible of an event as this is, something like this gives newspapers and TV stations endless amount of topics. For television producers and newspaper editors benefit greatly from a story like this.

Theres no way of covering something like this up, obviously the story is going to be posted on the internet. However he wanted us to see that video that is posted on thestar.com, he wanted us to see those images of him putting a gun towards th e camera. He got what he wanted. Should this really be front page news? Should that package really have been posted? The families of the victims being told that it is some how their fault this happened. That they could have stopped it?

Please vote. You can vote for multiple options

[TapemanPL]

its actually spelled massacre, and people do need to know about things like this, or else if the news didn't broadcast anything that was too sensitive for viewers, the news would be nothing more than the weather and traffic

[Diamondog]

Of course it needs to be broadcasted otherwise you get into state run media outlets aka communist/dictator run factions

[GangStarr]

Good points and spelling correction noted. So how come suicides are not reported? I suppose its 1 life vs 33.

I have a problem with the media package more then anything else. Incase anyone hasn't watched it http://www3.thestar.com/cgi-bin/star_static.cgi?section=news&page=/Videos/070418_ap_nbc_ff.html


Should we really be forced to stare down the barrel of a gun?

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/215371_3.JPG

[UrbanPoet]

Of course it needs to be broadcasted otherwise you get into state run media outlets aka communist/dictator run factions

not ban it per se, but have ethical and moral guidelines that would frown upon it. Such as the case with suicides...

[vrus]

everything should be reported, imo

[wasserkool]

YEs, it should be reported in full. AFter looking at the manifesto, one can realize that someone must have failed in large either at the university or societal level.

It looks like the movie The Ring where it takes years of accumulated anger, hatred or oppresion to drive a person to such extreme. AFter the release of the package, i think the next point is figure out what exactly are the driving force behind his motives, and take the neccesary steps to correct it. I am very sure the same driving force is affected many many similar people like him but the have not reached the tipping point yet.

[vladvlad]

Censorship is best.. Best to bury out heads in the sand.
There are so many things we don't need to know about.

Only massacres in OTHER countries should be reported.
That will make us feel better about where we live.

[stealth]

I wouldnt worry too much about him "getting what he wanted". Its irrelevant at this point. Its not being publicized to give him what he wants, because this publicity doesnt show him the way he wants to be portrayed e.g. as a hero, martyr, victim, etc. Its shows him as a weak, sick, disturbed, hateful wretch of a human being.

Its important to report this, so that in the future when we see warning signs of a disturbed individual, their cries for help, etc. that we not take them too lightly and brush them off. We need to all act, get this person help, and take care of one another.
When these things happen, we dont ban guns, we dont ban alcohol or vehicles if they were used, we dont ban violent movies, music, the internet, etc. so why whould we ban journalism? Out of all of these, journalism has the best chance of making sense out of it all for us.
Would you be in favor of banning user names like "gangstarr" that glorify violence and crime as well? :)

Nobody's forced to stare down the barrel of Cho's gun (anymore). Everyone knows that this sort of stark reality is what comprises 95% of news these days, so they can choose not to read/watch it. There are very few stories in the headlines of an old lady turning 100, a dog raising abandoned kittens, acts of charity, or whatever other feel-good stories you're looking for.

[Siefer999]

people shoudl know what happened but they shouldnt glorify the pictures and videos the guy sent to nbc by showing them over and over again on every tv station at all times of the day. thats what the killer wanted. he wanted to be heard and acknowledged. he wanted people to sympathize with what he has done and he wants to inspire others to follow in his footsteps.

cover massacres? YES.
glorify them like the media is doing right now? NO.

[Byrns]

cover massacres? YES.
glorify them like the media is doing right now? NO.

+1

[EH100501AC]

I don't mind if being covered but the jumping on the bandwagon afterwards of supposed support groups...bleh fads/joining in just for the sake of it?

[YnD]

Yes, in order to show bullies what happens as a result of their actions.

[thelefteyeguy]

I wonder how many students got this question for an essay assignment this week ;)

[Siefer999]

Yes, in order to show bullies what happens as a result of their actions.
next school killer with deep emotional problems:arrowu: :arrowu:

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

This is a silly topic, on par with asking if the media should cover political scandals.

[Siefer999]

This is a silly topic, on par with asking if the media should cover political scandals.

explain how you are comparing the two
edit: poll is stupid though

[GangStarr]

Would you be in favor of banning user names like "gangstarr" that glorify for.
Take a look when I signed up. Hes a rapper I used to like. Didn't think Id stick around on these threads that long and changing your name isn't possible. Hes also an early 90's rapper that had better things to talk about then Rims and Hoes. I listen to drum and bass now anyways.

My argument is the media box. Seems im not the only one.


From thestar.com


Some families who lost loved ones also expressed their anger by canceling appearances on the network’s flagship morning show “Today.’’

“I just hate that a lot people not used to seeing that type of image had to see it,’’ said Col. Steve Flaherty of the state police.

The network received a package from the killer, Cho Seung-Hui yesterday morning which contained a rambling and often incoherent 23-page written statement, 28 video clips and 43 photos.

NBC immediately handed the tapes over to police, but Virginia officials said it contained only “marginal’’ evidence in their investigation.

Police interviewed the postal clerk at the station just off campus who received the package from Cho at 9.01 Monday morning, during a two-hour period between his two killing rampages.

She helpfully corrected the zip code for the New York-bound package for Cho on what was an unusually busy morning with the American tax deadline looming.

The university also announced this morning that all slain students would be posthumously awarded the degrees they were seeking and would be honoured at school’s spring convocation ceremony.

In releasing the images on their nightly network broadcast last night, NBC officials explained their decision, saying it was a compelling story but they understood that they were in some respects accommodating the killer’s wishes by giving him such a platform.

“Today” show host Meredith Vieira said the decision to air the information “was not taken lightly.”

[batman321123]

say no to censorship

[ZenOps]

Yes of course.

But that is also what makes the internet greater than the television. You can selectively decide to not receive information about massacres if you do not want to. IE: Just don't click the link.

[Siefer999]

say no to censorship

many people arent saying to censor it out completely. i suggest they be selective in how they choose to display something as sensitive as this. all news networks are pushing this topic because it is 'good' news. they are giving people what they want but they are presenting it in a way that is detrimental to society.

basically choose your words wisely.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

explain how you are comparing the two
edit: poll is stupid though

Simply put, political scandals cause damage to a voter's faith in the political system. One can make the argument that Democracy being paramount, we should avoid publicizing events which damage our faith in the system.

Of course, that argument is incredibly stupid. The purpose of the news is not to enhance our faith in democracy, nor is it to sooth the feelings of the families of victims of crime. It is to report the situation, and report facts. The press does not always live up to this task, but it is incredibly stupid (almost Stalin-esque) to suggest that we shouldn't cover events of this magnitude. Even if the reports are salacious and overblown (blame 24 hour news for that), we rely on the information we receive to make our judgments.

-edit- As for the scale of the news, I do not consider it as important as the constant massacres happening in Iraq and Baghdad. However, those are both the fault of Iraqis and Americans; it is hard for something like that to compete with a purely-American massacre (the Ben Johnson-esque 'Korean-born' BS aside).

[Nikita]

Good points and spelling correction noted. So how come suicides are not reported? I suppose its 1 life vs 33.

I have a problem with the media package more then anything else. Incase anyone hasn't watched it http://www3.thestar.com/cgi-bin/star_static.cgi?section=news&page=/Videos/070418_ap_nbc_ff.html


Should we really be forced to stare down the barrel of a gun?

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/215371_3.JPG

Suicides (except for celebrity suicides) aren't reported because it is a personal matter affecting the family only. Nor is suicide a crime. Massacres affect the country, and are criminal, considered a crime 'against the state', not the victims.

Reporting suicides doens't assist us in deciding if we're satisfied with what governments or law enforcement is doing to invesgtigate or remedy a crime, if there were warning signs that peole ignored thus resulting in the loss of numerous innocent lives (which may result in civil liablities). Or if the general public should be making decisions on when or where to send there kids back to school.

Besides suicide is not newsworthy and who really is interested in suicide stories anyway?

[afong56]

no to censorship, but yes to responsible coverage--keep the feelings of the victims' families in mind, and make an effort to not glorify the selfish, destructive efforts of a disturbed young man.

give the victims 95% of the coverage, including full biographies of some.
give the perp 5% of the coverage, using mostly straight facts/reporting, nothing more.

[Kasakato]

Why is this being compared to a suicide? Your wrong by 32 accounts. If someone dies as a result of ones neglect, it should be on the news, and all facts should be revealed.

[Cafe_333]

it's considered news worthy because it affects the society we live in - one person's suicide doesn't. school killings has prompted for changes in the way security is handled on campuses across the nation and called for new protocols, procedures, or planning to be in place. There was a mention on the news how the montreal massacre changed the way security is handled at UofT for example. As a result emergency task forces are better prepared and pre-planned in the event of such a situation. in related instances, the sars outbreak has showed how toronto and many other cities are vastly underprepared and unorganized to handle an outbreak. news coverage helped change all that.

[GangStarr]

Suicides (except for celebrity suicides) aren't reported because it is a personal matter affecting the family only. Nor is suicide a crime. Massacres affect the country, and are criminal, considered a crime 'against the state', not the victims.

Reporting suicides doens't assist us in deciding if we're satisfied with what governments or law enforcement is doing to invesgtigate or remedy a crime, if there were warning signs that peole ignored thus resulting in the loss of numerous innocent lives (which may result in civil liablities). Or if the general public should be making decisions on when or where to send there kids back to school.

Besides suicide is not newsworthy and who really is interested in suicide stories anyway?

Suicide may not be a crime per say however there has been great legal cases regarding the right for one to chose when to die. Mainly in the case of terminally ill patients. Doctor assisted suicides are against the law. You do not have the right to take your own life. I just don't believe its a clear violation of the criminal code.


no to censorship, but yes to responsible coverage--keep the feelings of the victims' families in mind, and make an effort to not glorify the selfish, destructive efforts of a disturbed young man.

give the victims 95% of the coverage, including full biographies of some.
give the perp 5% of the coverage, using mostly straight facts/reporting, nothing more.
I think 80/20 is a bit more reasonable but I agree with you.

Why is this being compared to a suicide? Your wrong by 32 accounts. If someone dies as a result of ones neglect, it should be on the news, and all facts should be revealed.

If you read my above post I said I suppose its 1 life vs 33. Thanks anyways.

Trust me if they were allowed to report on it, Global news could take a person jumping infront of a subway a spin it a million ways to get a 10 minute story out of it. Should ttc put barricades... Why do people jump more in Jan than June.

Media never has enough to talk about. Such tragic events are like porn for them.

[Nikita]

Suicide may not be a crime per say however there has been great legal cases regarding the right for one to chose when to die. Mainly in the case of terminally ill patients. Doctor assisted suicides are against the law. You do not have the right to take your own life. I just don't believe its a clear violation of the criminal code.



You do indeed have the right to take your own life. There is no offence of suicide in the criminal code and hasn't been for a very long time now.

Why is this being compared to a suicide? Your wrong by 32 accounts. If someone dies as a result of ones neglect, it should be on the news, and all facts should be revealed.

Good point kas, the difference between someone dying at the hands of others and someone dying by their own hand and their own choice. I have to say though, you were very generous using the word 'neglect'...lol...this kind of act isn't negligence, it's criminal.

[GangStarr]

You do indeed have the right to take your own life. There is no offence of suicide in the criminal code and hasn't been for a very long time now.



Good point kas, the difference between someone dying at the hands of others and someone dying by their own hand and their own choice. I have to say though, you were very generous using the word 'neglect'...lol...this kind of act isn't negligence, it's criminal.

Sigh I looked into it and your right, only illegal thing is for anyone to aid in the process. I stand corrected. I thought it violated the charter in the right to life. Never thought it was outlined in the criminal code, just one of those fundamental things.

[Nikita]

Sigh I looked into it and your right, only illegal thing is for anyone to aid in the process. I stand corrected. I thought it violated the charter in the right to life. Never thought it was outlined in the criminal code, just one of those fundamental things.

I have to say GangStarr, this is only the second time I've ever seen anyone here admit they made a mistake (geez, even Shaner did it once...lol...take it easy Shaner I'm teasing you, while giving you kudos). I respect that in a person. On that note, a very senior and well-known lawyer used to use this line in a lot of his speeches and it is something I've never forgotten...and something that makes it easier to admit my own mistakes:

If you have to eat crow, eat it while it's young and tender.

Words to live by!