was NBC showing the Cho videos the abu ghraib of virginia tech coverage?
in no way am i trying to equate the gravity of vatech with the iraq war (yes, the shooting was sad and shocking, but we're talking civil war), but something interesting my idiot roommate told me got me thinking.
he's the one who works as a producer for fox news, and he was telling me how in the week he spent in blacksburg, he and his crew and some of the students and families actually began forming a sort of camaraderie. yes, true the media are often depicted as vultures, but after a while, i think people start getting used to it. he said, for the most part, people were relatively open to talking to the press, and if not, were at least polite about it.
then NBC aired those videos and the whole tone changed. he'd ask questions and he'd get a big "fuck you" or "shove off." granted, he sucks at life and totally deserves it, but the bigger picture is that sentiment definitely shifted away from the media. the people were disgusted, betrayed. they no longer could trust us.
then think about what abu ghraib did to iraqi sentiment toward america and american troops. it's safe to say that a significant number of people (maybe not majority, and failure was probably inevitable, but we'll stick with a vague "significant") were on board with the whole america in iraq thing. but once the abu ghraib story broke, that whole concept was basically decimated. no more trust, yada yada.
what's the lesson behind these two analogous events? i'm not really sure. that the media sucks? or maybe just the world in general. don't fuck with people's lives.
he's the one who works as a producer for fox news, and he was telling me how in the week he spent in blacksburg, he and his crew and some of the students and families actually began forming a sort of camaraderie. yes, true the media are often depicted as vultures, but after a while, i think people start getting used to it. he said, for the most part, people were relatively open to talking to the press, and if not, were at least polite about it.
then NBC aired those videos and the whole tone changed. he'd ask questions and he'd get a big "fuck you" or "shove off." granted, he sucks at life and totally deserves it, but the bigger picture is that sentiment definitely shifted away from the media. the people were disgusted, betrayed. they no longer could trust us.
then think about what abu ghraib did to iraqi sentiment toward america and american troops. it's safe to say that a significant number of people (maybe not majority, and failure was probably inevitable, but we'll stick with a vague "significant") were on board with the whole america in iraq thing. but once the abu ghraib story broke, that whole concept was basically decimated. no more trust, yada yada.
what's the lesson behind these two analogous events? i'm not really sure. that the media sucks? or maybe just the world in general. don't fuck with people's lives.
posted by alison at 17:40
3 Comments:
Call me crazy, but I actually didn't see anything wrong with airing the Cho videos. I could see where people who were directly affected by the tragedy would have a problem with it -- giving Cho a national platform, etc. But as for me, I wanted to know what made this guy tick, what set him off. I had my preconceived notions (two theories, actually), and the videos seemed to support one of them.
to be honest, i never even watched the videos, but i don't really condemn NBC for doing so. if i were the one making the decision, i would probably show it, but with a lot of reservations and a lot of guilt. abu ghraib was objectively bad, but showing the videos definitely was not. the similarities i found have more to do with the effect the two events had, not so much the whether it was right or wrong. does that make any sense? what were your theories? i've been reading/listening to a lot of psychologists trying to decipher what he was: psychotic, angry depressive, psychopath, etc. slate had a piece and they discussed it on science friday too. feel free to share any other insights.
Theory #1: Cho was your stereotypical Asian overachiever kid who cracked under all the stress of living up to his parents' expectations, and the video was directed to his parents. My mom subscribed to this theory initially, as did I.
Theory #2: Cho was kind of an awkward kid who was bullied when he was younger. I don't know what set him off at this particular juncture, but it seems to me that it was a response to years of being bullied, teased, etc. This is the theory that I think is borne out in the videos, which seemed to be directed to everyone who ever teased him in his life.
And just for the sake of completeness, I offer Theory #3, which some of my friends subscribe to, but I don't (since I don't believe in demons in a literal sense):
Theory #3: Cho was psychologically vulnerable to attack by malevolent spiritual entities (e.g., demons), and such entities compelled him to carry out the attacks.
As far as airing the Cho videos, I think that while there are some similarities with Abu Gharaib as you point out, a distinction can be made. In the case of Abu Gharaib, airing the videos raised public awareness and caused action to be taken. Conditions at Abu Gharaib could no longer be denied. In the case of Cho, I'm not sure what practical benefit can result from airing the videos, other than satisfying the public's curiosity. But I don't see any policy changes happening as a result. I'm not criticizing the decision to air the videos on that ground, I'm just saying that there is a difference between the two situations.
Post a Comment
<< Home