Did anyone see the Bill O'Reilly debate over the Cho video? I was attempting to watch the Colbert Report on iptv and accidentally clicked on Fox News instead. Perhaps more luck than accident. O'Reilly was in the midde of facilitating a debate between news analysts Bernard Goldberg and Jane Hall. It was an interesting debate, and more pertinent to our class than what I discussed in my previous Cho blog. I'll keep looking for a clip on youtube, hopefully it'll be up soon!

Basically the three were discussing whether or not the media should have aired the tapes Cho sent to NBC. Some of the points they brought up were, does showing the tapes glorify Cho, make him a celebrity, and encourage other potential killers? And what responsibility does the media have in this situation? Goldberg argued that it was less important that the tapes had been shown, but instead why they were shown. All three agreed that showing the tapes was simply covering the news responsibility. Goldberg noted two possible reasons for showing the tapes: the "public consumption" answer, that maybe we can learn something from the "good news story," and the ratings component, that "there is nothing more fascinating than a demented human being looking into a camera and talking." Goldberg then went on to say that yes, he would have shown the tapes, but that he "would have for the news reasons." A difficult call to make, as the ratings component would seem to be inescapably connected to the news component. Whatever NBCs reasons may have been, all also agreed that not airing the tapes was not even an option so there is no point in debating that possibility.

Some other questions asked were, are we simply being 'entertained' by these tapes, and are we giving into what Cho wanted? Or does seeing them somehow give us a better understanding of the killer? O'Reilly repeatedly pressed the point that "evil will find a way unless we are very vigilant," and that airing the tapes would help that cause. He believed that seeing the tapes and giving Cho exposure would help shock the nation into passing laws that would protect people from potential future tragedies.

The question of copycat killers was also brought up. Goldberg, O'Reilly and Hall agreed that clusters of similar incidents tend to surround news coverage of such events, but that this cannot be a reason not to air Cho's tapes. It is no longer a question of Cho's tapes specificaly, but a question of media responsibility. Not airing the tapes is equivalent to not reporting the news. Goldberg, continuing with his news component argument stated of news stations, "they make a news decision, it is a proper news decision." Less euphemistically, copycat events are unfortunate, but should not act as deterrents to editors.

Finally, how, exactly, do seeing the tapes affect the viewer? Other than copycat killers, are most people who see these kinds of images inspired to positive action (petitioning for new gun control laws, etc.) as O'Reilly believes, or are we numbed now to the shock value of such images? (I apologize for skipping around, I'm still watching Fox while writing this out.) We've asked some similar questions when discussing the merits of showing images of, for example, Abu Ghraib. About how images and/or sound effect the viewer. Is omission more powerful at times than seeing an image? Or, like our discussion in class about the different effects of radio reports of 9/11 versus TV coverage, in a society where we are constantly overwhelmed with images, is just-sound no longer effective? O'Reilly, Goldberg and Hall agreed that one problem with news station use of Cho's tapes is the quantity; repeated and excessive showings take away from the original impact.

Last class, we talked about how Osama Bin Laden spaced the two attacks on 9/11 to ensure that the second plane would be on TV. Cho - securing a similar insurance policy - taped his manifesto, took pictures, and sent all these materials to NBC. There has been some discussion on Cho's religious motivations (pictures with his arms raised in Christ-like pose, Ismael-AX on his arm...), and also debates how showing the tapes and glorifying Cho leads, in a way, to his martyrdom. I don't think Bin Laden and Cho had similar reasoning (religious or otherwise) behind their attacks, but their desire to manipulate the media to serve their respective agendas was, I believe, similarly motivated.

As a final thought, a quotation I typed down while watching Fox, "The suspect is pulling our strings from his grave...this is what he wanted us to do."