Why NBC Should Not Have Aired Cho’s Video
About a year ago I got flamed by several people and groups with whom I am generally in strong agreement when I wrote that the Danish Muhammad cartoons that caused so much trouble should not have been reprinted in the Daily Illini out of sensitivity to the Muslim community. It was one in a series of events that led to me developing a reputation for being anti-free speech.
In recent days we have all been reeling from the massacre at Virginia Tech. We have also been fascinated and repulsed by the video of the killer that NBC released (and, with the type of cynicism characteristic of a massive media conglomerate, branded with the NBC peacock to force free advertising on other news outlets carrying the video). Spokesmen from NBC, from Nightly News anchor Brian Williams to the president of NBC, have defended the airing of the video as essentially newsworthy, or at least newsworthy enough to air over the objections of police officials and family members of the victims.
The airing of the video is, of course, exactly what Cho wanted. More importantly, the airing of the video and the media bonanza that the Virginia Tech massacre spurred are exactly what future killers will want for themselves. Nothing, of course, will prevent these sorts of events from ever happening again. But it is probable, if not a certainty, that copycat killings will occur as a direct result of the mountain of attention Cho received for his acts.
Consequently, I must live up once again to my reputation and join those arguing that, as a matter of journalistic responsibility, NBC should never have aired Cho’s video. Indeed, it seems sensible even for journalistic outfits, as they report on these tragedies, to not report as little as possible about the killer. Journalists will like to portray the issue as an ethical dilemma, but what really have we gleaned from Cho’s video that can be described as so newsworthy that its airing is worth the future loss of lives and the future anguish of families of victims? What have we gleaned from seeing his face or knowing his name? Why should we give this man a microphone and thereby encourage other psychos to emulate his violence? Is it really worth it?
A List of Those Who Agree With Me (At Billy Joe Mills’ Request)
- Peggy Noonan thinks Billy doesn’t have common sense: “It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won’t help.”
- Mickey Kaus thinks Billy doesn’t have a brain: “It seems less like an ‘ethical challenge’ than a no-brainer. Why encourage other potential Cho’s to try for a similar publicity bonanza?”
- ABC News thinks Billy’s views are a social catastrophe: “This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe.”
- The National Review thinks Billy wants copycat killings: “Surely they know it will spawn copy-cats. So are they showing it because they would rather enjoy copy-cats?”
- The National Review also thinks Billy is sending a bad message: “But NBC News is about to give Cho an audience of around 10 million people for his deranged rantings. What kind of message does this send to other isolated, disturbed and angry youths who entertain the same violent thoughts as Cho?”
- The Huffington Post thinks Billy has no possible explanation for himself: “What is the possible journalistic explanation for splashing Cho’s self-dramatizing poses and self-justifying bullshit over network and cable air?”
- MSNBC thinks Billy is disrespectful: “Airing the video ultimately was disrespectful to the victims and their families. It also was exploitative of Cho’s condition and that of all severely mentally ill people.”
- A guest on Andrew Sullivan’s blog thinks Billy will cause more mass murders: “In the next few weeks and months, even over the next few years, expect to see copycat killings inspired by Cho’s actions. The more saturated the media coverage, the more such events we are likely to get.”
- Our very own Daily Illini thinks Billy has poor judgment: “Better judgment should have been used, especially considering that the images that have been aired cannot possibly be used for a greater understanding of this seriously disturbed individual or the havoc he wrought. What has happened this week has only helped to immortalize this murderer.”
That’s all I’ll list for now, but not because there isn’t a wealth of other people who share my view. Oh, two important groups I forgot: the families of the victims and the police officials involved in the case.
Anything else, Billy?
Comment by Augur on 23 April 2007 at 11:52 am:
Brian, you really aren’t going out on a limb here or anything, if there was a public opinion poll everyone would agree with you, ironically though, almost all of them would have changed the channel to see it out of curiosity. They want to see it, they just don’t want everyone else to see it. If that test is passed, chances are it’s news.
But check out Peggy the goddess: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I wonder what would happen if a major network had a change in ownership and they promised more responsible journalism. Their affiliates would not lead with 10 minutes on murder in the evening news cast. They would admit any partisan bias, and be transparent about ownership and conflict of interest issues. Of course you get into line drawing issues right away, what else will they protect the American people from? This slippery slope is gets steep very quickly.
Comment by Brian on 23 April 2007 at 12:08 pm:
“They want to see it, they just don’t want everyone else to see it. If that test is passed, chances are it’s news.”
That or pornography.
I didn’t think I was going out on a limb, by the way, with any crowd except perhaps this one. Most people have sense and compassion enough to come to this obvious conclusion, but most people don’t have the fanatical and simple-minded worship of free speech that you and Billy tend to have.
You’re right about the question of what else the media will protect the American people from coming up. That’s why we need to have responsible journalists who earn our trust and are held accountable by consumers. It’s not why we need to throw up our hands and air everything that provokes us. At the moment, there is a general journalistic standard not to print the names of victims of rape. Is it so much of a leap to apply that same standard to killers like Cho? Are we sacrificing so much?
The fact that issues of linedrawing will come up doesn’t always mean we shouldn’t draw lines. Sometimes it means we must ensure that people who are responsible for linedrawing should be qualified, serious-minded, and accountable.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 23 April 2007 at 12:53 pm:
Brian,
I can’t read your post, I just don’t have the patience to read more about you wanting to cover the eyes of the “children” for their own good. “Children” to you being any member of the American public. There are liberals (mostly classical liberals like myself) who love liberty, and then there are those who ironically fear liberty…you have made no secret which group you prefer. The weight of history, legal theory, and free speech theory run counter to your growing liberal censorship club.
Comment by Brandon on 23 April 2007 at 1:20 pm:
so much anger Billy. Anger leads to hatred. Hatred leads to the darkside.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 23 April 2007 at 1:45 pm:
According to you, I’m already on the darkside…and to tell you the truth, I prefer it that way.
Comment by Brian on 23 April 2007 at 2:02 pm:
You’re right, Billy, we don’t censor things. We just exercise the responsibilities that are paired with our freedoms. Or don’t you think those exist?
Comment by erik on 23 April 2007 at 2:13 pm:
once again, the world pats itself on the back for coming to consensus on something i’ve been saying for years. footage of cho should never have seen the light of day.
cho is a one-trick poney whose entire fame is based on a devoted following of lesbians who somehow don’t tire of seeing the same old asian lady impression year in and year out. at last i can feel vindicated and our national nightmare can come to a close.
Comment by Evan on 23 April 2007 at 2:19 pm:
I don’t really think there is a direct parallel between the cartoons from last year and this situation. The former involves fear of consequences from offending a group of people and their ideas, while the latter from sensationalism. In my opinion, the censorship of the cartoons is clearly much worse, but I wouldn’t censor either, unsurprisingly.
Perhaps you should be encouraging everyone not to watch the news coverage of Cho, instead of encouraging the newspeople not to show it.
Comment by J. Prescott on 23 April 2007 at 3:26 pm:
I think it was totally worth showing. I think the benefits are worth the risks.
Whether the “psychos” emulate Cho are not is unimportant, and is no more dangerous that showing Paris Hilton ad nauseum. To me, “psychos” are going to kill whether they see this video or not. Whether they emulate Cho or emumlate a Tarantino flick, is unimportant; people are going to die. Thats what “psyhos” do. People are still going to want to do something along VT lines because in Western Society it is better to be famous than good, and this is one way to be famous.
Better to confront the totality of the circumstances and the mindframe that preceeded it than to protect society from something that either can’t be prevented, or is of minimum importance.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 23 April 2007 at 3:33 pm:
Brian,
The responsibility for a journalist to disseminate the truth and the news will almost always outweigh his responsibility to censor himself.
Comment by kofi the that cho kid was seriously f***ed in the head on 23 April 2007 at 6:50 pm:
How far are Billy and friends willing to go? So far we have not seen any photographs of the bloody scenes within the hall. I don’t mean of dead bodies (that potentially raises an issue of privacy I don’t want to get into) but simply of the scene after the bodies were removed. Bullet holes, over turned desks, blood and guts. Showing the scenes would “disseminate the truth” of how awful it was for those trapped in the classrooms and therefore deserves to be aired/printed, right?
Personally, I’m not sure what side I am on. Instinctively I agreed with Brian entirely because of the “encouragement of copycats” factor, but J. Prescott effectively eliminated that factor by pointing out psychos will emulate whatever is available.
Here’s a scenario: A maniac takes 32 people hostage. He demands to be put on national television or he will kill all the hostages. Would Billy and friends cave to his demands and put him on the air because he is momentarily “newsworthy?” If not, how does this situation differ much? Apparently if you wanted to get broadcast you need to kill the 32 people plus yourself, and simply leave a tape behind?
If the decision had ultimately been mine, I wouldn’t have shown the tapes simply out of personal taste. My network, my news show, my taste reigns. If you don’t like it change the channel or go on the internet.
Comment by Brandon on 23 April 2007 at 7:39 pm:
I think an important distinction can be drawn in defense of Brian. He’s not advocating and regulation or restriction, simply that news shows not encourage such behavior by giving it the airtime it so desperately (and quite pathetically) demands. This can be analogized to terrorism in that it really wouldn’t happen (at least in this particular way) if it didn’t make headlines. Them fellers in Al-Quaeda and such wouldn’t be out blowing themselves up just to kill a few random civilians - they want the attention that comes with it.
That being said, I don’t care if the networks show this stuff. I don’t watch TV anyway. Especially not televised news. I think Prescott and Kofi got most of the sides. On one hand there’s the issue of encouragement, on the other there’s the basic assumption (which I happen to think is well grounded) that a nut is going to snap one way or another, just maybe not THAT way. I hate sensationalized news, it’s like reality TV. Contrived bullshit. However, that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be informed and kept up to date on what’s happening in their country. Should it be headline news for a week? Maybe not. Should it not be reported at all? Of course it should.
Comment by J. Prescott on 23 April 2007 at 7:47 pm:
Kofi -
Forget newsworthy. Forget emulation. Forget partisan bullshit. Forget the party lines. Take it back to the beginning.
The question is how dangerous is information? You and I, and most people who read the blog, we can assume are not only rational but pretty darn intelligent. We look at bullet ridden, blood stained classrooms, we feel revulsion, disgust, prolly pity, and a whole lot of other emotions. It is a reminder that life, while it can be great, is also nasty, brutish, and ugly. It reminds us of what life can be without the rule of law and how far we have yet to go.
I have already established that the argument of emulation in this case is not valid. Yet, you and Brian would still argue against releasing the information. So the question is why to be hesitant with its relief. The argument must be that the release of such information would diminish us or hurt us in some way.
Really? Is the human psyche so frail, so fragile, that when confronted with terrible events of HUMAN MAKING that they would break? That humans are so defenseless that a chosen few must protect them?
I have been called a pessimistic guy, who constantly thinks the worst of people. And I am and I do. I think that people will constantly make bad choices, despite their best intentions, will hurt others, and generally do evil to some extent. That being said I never, ever thought so little of those around me that I believed that everyone around me needed to be protected from KNOWLEDGE by itself. I mean, I may be pessimistic, but that view is downright gloomy.
Comment by kofi the who snuck something into his beverage? on 23 April 2007 at 10:50 pm:
J. Prescott, drivel is hard to catch let alone address. I’ll do my best.
1) I never said showing the aftermath was dangerous information. I asked if “Billy and friends” were willing to go so far as to endorse such images. Maybe you are. I’m not really sure. You never said so much. You trailed off with some vague reference to humanity or law. I fell asleep.
2) You state that you established the argument against emulation. I agree. I credited you for it. … … I don’t get it?
3) I never said human psyche is fragile nor that a select few needed to protect the rest of us.
4) I think you’re trying to say that you’re “pessimistic.” Good luck with that.
Comment by J. Prescott on 23 April 2007 at 11:36 pm:
Kofi -
I guess you are right…I didn’t understand your argument.
Is merely reporting the information, or at least putting it out there “endorsing it?” I mean thats an awful big jump. Mein Kampf is in most American libraries, and I doubt that they would endorse the thoughts therein. So the mere act of making information available is hardly endorsing it…on the contrary, exposing the information, coupling the situation with whatever “realities” the hostage taker/psyscho espouses does more to damage the man’s cause than anything else. So why not allow the man to talk. Its not about “caving in,” its about giving the guy enough rope to hang himself. Is there anyone in this group who is thinking, “hm…this guy killed 32 people for some reason. He must have had one hell of a point?”
Probably not. You are probably thinking, “This guy is a psycho. His ‘views’ are probably incredibly poorly thought out and are of little value if the only way he could push them is by killing a bunch of people.”
As for why I restated the emulation argument because I was trying to figure out all of the arguments against playing the news. It was a recap, and I said I already addressed it. I was merely trying to recap all of the arguments. I probably missed some.
So assuming that emulation is no longer an argument that holds up, yet you and Brian still infer that some informtion is in some way, shape or form “not appropriate,” that leaves us to question why the information about Cho or your hypothetial should not be disseminated. I presume, from your “caving” comment, that you think there is something wrong with giving out the information about the hostage taker. What is it? If you don’t think that the information is in and of itself dangerous, then why not publish it? What about it makes it in poor taste? Why try to protect the public from it?
In short, if you don’t think people are fragile, and therefore don’t need to be protected, what is it about the videotape, or the hostage taker’s demands, that is so objectionable that you would not air it? At what line do we withhold information?
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 24 April 2007 at 12:56 am:
The reason governmental paternalism doesn’t work is because the people being the governmental paternalists are just as stupid or just as smart as the people they seek to control. The difference is that the people themselves are closer to their situation, thus they have a closer view and a better understanding of their idiosyncratic life and needs. Information should be distributed and people should be allowed to consume it as they please, or to not consume it at all. Obviously there are limits, and ought to be limits, what is desirable speech. Obscenity, indecent exposure, and commercial speech all have qualified protections. But reporting on a major and bona fide news event does not even come close to the line that society has clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly drawn which allows speech except in extreme circumstances.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 24 April 2007 at 1:02 am:
Urbanagoralandopeople:
You can read my
original free speech debate with Brian, these articles were published as a point/counterpoint in the DI.
Brian, you really ought to stop posting speech-hating speech, I just end up giving you a public whooping everytime. That’s OK, it even took Holmes a few years to come around (Compare Schenck majority opinion with Abrams dissenting opinion).
Comment by Brandon on 24 April 2007 at 7:16 am:
“But reporting on a major and bona fide news event does not even come close to the line that society has clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly drawn which allows speech except in extreme circumstances.”
Relax and get the fuck off your pulpit Billy boy. Advocacy ended LAST WEEK. :-P
Comment by Josh Rohrscheib on 24 April 2007 at 7:52 am:
I heard that Learned Hand took Holmes on numerous walks all around Washington arguing with him and convincing him to change his perspective on free speech between those two opinions.
Comment by tet on 24 April 2007 at 8:09 am:
I’ve been off playing Zelda on my new Wii that ElderWife bought for me (bwah-ha-ha, ha-ha-ha), so I’m a bit late to this picnic.
I have to say that I’m firmly behind Prescott on this one.
Two points that I don’t think have been addressed yet:
1) From a spiritual standpoint, airing the video is useful because it clearly demonstrates the existance of evil in a way that will make even the biggest proponent of moral relativism shudder.
Since one purpose of our lives on earth is to fight evil in all of its forms, every time someone dismisses the existance of such, it’s a win for the dark side.
One other thing on this point–see any atheists out there helping console the hurt families? See Dawkins or any of the other Brights on the TV explaining how it was just one collection of molecules using crystalline matricies of lead to disrupt the cellular structure of another collection of molecules?
This is because atheism is empty when faced with situations like this. It has nothing of any value whatsoever for either the bereaved or those of us who are trying to figure out how to lessen the chances of it reoccuring or combat it when it does. Vox Day had an excellent post on this a couple of days ago.
2) If you go back and reread my story, you’ll see that because of my experience with the first killer, I was able to recognize some of the same characteristics in the second troubled young man and intervene.
Since there are a lot more normal people out there than there are psychokillers, it is a lot more likely that someone is going to see Cho on the TV and go, “Hey! There’s a guy at work that acts the same way sometimes, maybe I should say something to someone!” than it is that another psychokiller will use it as a trigger.
In that way, it’s a public service.
Tom
Comment by kofi the unable to communicate effectively on 24 April 2007 at 8:29 am:
J. Prescott,
Is merely reporting the information, or at least putting it out there “endorsing it?” I mean thats an awful big jump. Mein Kampf is in most American libraries, and I doubt that they would endorse the thoughts therein. So the mere act of making information available is hardly endorsing it…
I guess I mispoke. I did not mean to ask if “Billy and friends” would endorse bloody scenes or endorse the views of those that produced the bloody scene. I was asking if they would “endorse” the release of such images. Extremely graphic images that contain information. Should they be released? Are we being disserved by our news sources because we have no yet seen these images?
So assuming that emulation is no longer an argument that holds up, yet you and Brian still infer that some informtion is in some way, shape or form “not appropriate,” that leaves us to question why the information about Cho or your hypothetial should not be disseminated.
I never said information about Cho was “not appropriate.” I said that I wouldn’t have released it because of personal taste. I never said I wanted to prevent others from releasing it.
I presume, from your “caving” comment, that you think there is something wrong with giving out the information about the hostage taker.
We’re talking about a taped declaration. This is not information about the hostage taker. It’s the hostage taker’s deranged message.
What about it makes it in poor taste? Why try to protect the public from it?
The tape didn’t rise to the level of my personal taste because it was the incoherent ramblings of a psychopathic killer. I never said I would “protect the public from it.” I said I wouldn’t air it out of personal taste. I also wouldn’t air reruns of Charles in Charge - again, because of personal taste; not out of some paternalistic motivation to protect the public.
I’m apparently extremely bad at communicating so let me attempt to clarify my original questions and the points I was trying to make.
1) The “why not photographs of the bloody scene” argument: I was not trying to use this scenario to argue against releasing the video tape. “Billy and friends” proferred a rule that “information” should be “disseminated.” I’m merely asking how far you’re willing to take your rule. Photographs of the bloody scene provide information. Should they be released? If no, why not? Are they not information? Or is there some qualification inherent in your rule? That is all I’m trying to get to. Should we report all information?
2) The “caving” argument: Let’s start off with, “Should we negotiate with terrorists?” If Cho had instead held 32 people hostage and demanded the news air a video he had prepared, should the news have complied? Is his video newsworthy, no matter how incoherent, “news” simply because he’s holding people hostage? Does this mean that if anyone else wants to get fifteen minutes on primetime, he should simply hold people hostage? Just answer the question: should they air is video simply because he’s holding people hostage? If the answer is yes then we’re done. You’re apparently willing to bend to the whims of any moron with the gun. Congratulations. If the answer is no, then we need to go a step further. What is the distinction between the person who holds 32 people hostage and demands airtime, and the person who kills 32 people to gain access to the airtime? You wouldn’t air a tape under the threat of 32 deaths, but if the actor is crazy enough to actually kill 32 people, well then you’ll air it? Haven’t you just put a human price on primetime television? 32 dead people = ten minutes of primetime? I would not negotiate with terrorists. If a terrorist threatened to kill 32 people, I would not do what he asked. If a terrorist then killed 32 people, I would not say “Oh well, gee, you really mean it. Ok.” I would still refuse to comply with his demands. That’s all I’m trying to get to.
Comment by Brian on 24 April 2007 at 8:34 am:
Billy,
It never, ever ceases to amaze me the way you can take a statement I make about personal or professional responsibility which is clearly applied ONLY to the private sphere and respond by blathering on and on about the problems with “government paternalism.” It’s tiresome to have to state this every time we have this discussion, but I repeat: I AM NOT ADVOCATING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN ANY WAY.
You also said: “The responsibility for a journalist to disseminate the truth and the news will almost always outweigh his responsibility to censor himself.” This is laughable, and it’s precisely why I call your view of free speech simple-minded. It’s not FREE speech if you think journalistic professionals are OBLIGATED to say something they think will be harmful to society or that for any other reason they do not want to say. That’s the opposite of free speech. The responsible exercise of what we say and and do is what freedom is all about. Now, clearly the folks at NBC don’t view their journalistic responsiblities the same way I would, but a lot of media critics and others agree with me. Neither side is engaging in censorship. Both sides are engaging in a discussion of the positive and negative consequences of the media frenzy following this massacre.
J. Prescott,
You seem to have rallied everybody around the notion that airing Cho’s video presents no danger to future lives, but I still have to take issue. Of course, in theory, you are right to say that psychos are going to do psychotic things - nothing’s going to stop things like this from ever happening. But we’re talking about actual human lives here, and if tomorrow on the Quad some troubled guy who wants attention metes out his deranged conception of justice on you or me in a manner nearly identical to Cho’s rampage, we cannot just rationalize that damage away by saying, “Well, that guy would have eventually found something else to emulate anyway, we just would have been waiting until he saw the new Tarantino movie.”
Now, maybe this hypothetical guy would have committed this copycat killing even if the media had undertaken a responsible level of coverage of the VT massacre. But nobody here can confidently assert that the fact that the VT massacred spurred a media FRENZY (which had nothing to do with the public’s right to know or the obligation to report a news story) could be enough to push somebody over the edge, that as soon as some lunatic out there saw that he could get an entire video of himself broadcast on every major news outlet that he then decided to turn his murderous fantasies into a reality. And whether that man would have killed in some other way on some other day in some other form or not does not detract from the fact that THOSE lives were lost in part because the media did not behave responsibly in its coverage of Virginia Tech.
All of this, of course, is speculation; that’s all anybody can do. But the risks associated with this coverage coupled with the fact that it is just plain bad, insensitive, sensationalizing journalism should bring us all to the conclusion that there is no vice in a restrained, responsible journalistic ethic.
Comment by J. Prescott on 24 April 2007 at 9:58 am:
Brian -
Thank you. You led me to the point that I was trying to build to.
Essentially, a lot of these individuals look on violence as a means of getting the respect they think they deserve that they can’t obtain in regular life. By coupling their incoherent ramblings with an incredible attrocity, seek to become feared and thus gain respect.
So option one is that you present the psycho’s views, and you fear what they say, and you condemn it, and you essentially allow them to achieve their goal by disseminating it in that way. We all lose, the psycho wins.
Or, you don’t disseminate it, because it is in poor taste, or whatever excuse you want to use, and the perception is you are not releasing it out of fear, and the psycho still gets what he wants; respect through fear. So others with similar viewpoints, will still be persuaded to do similar acts, because they can still obtain the respect through fear, whether they release the info or not.
So the best option is to release it, and make fun of the son of a bitch. Make Cho a punchline. If it becomes apparent to all those possible Cho disciples that they will not get the respect/fear/”positive” recognition they crave by committing attrocities, they will be less likely to see violence as a means of obtaining their goals.
Comment by tet on 24 April 2007 at 10:17 am:
Right on it, Prescott:
Hey everybody, what do psychokillers have in their bathtubs?
http://tinyurl.com/ystjwv
Aw, da widdle things are soooooo cute…….
Tom
Comment by kofi the free speech beater on 24 April 2007 at 4:03 pm:
This is my last attempt at getting J. Prescott to answer a question:
1) Images of the aftermath within Norris Hall should have been aired/printed.
True or false?
2) If a madman takes 32 people hostage and demands to speak on primetime television, news stations should comply.
True or false?
Comment by J. Prescott on 24 April 2007 at 4:36 pm:
Kofi - I am sorry. I thought you would have been able to figure out the response to both of those questions to be true. Better to have too much information when that information does not put lives in danger, than too little. I feel that that type of information will not put life in danger. As explained previously, neither of that information will endanger life, so disclose it.
I asked you a question too. What is your barometer for withholding information?
Comment by Brian on 24 April 2007 at 9:34 pm:
Check my update, Billy.
Comment by Brandon on 24 April 2007 at 10:39 pm:
Good riposte
Comment by illinikc33 on 24 April 2007 at 11:11 pm:
Oh man, I don’t have the time to look at every link you just posted, but whenever you resort to citing the DI, especially in terms of its judgement (or anything else for that matter), you lose credibility. You seriously questioned the DI’s judgement for posting those cartoons, and are now attempting to use their definition of “poor judgement” against Billy? This hypocrisy is killing me.
I clicked on the ABC news link you provided for kicks, and found that, alas, no employee of ABC News says, “This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe.”
In fact, it was a forensic psychiatrist that consultants for ABC from time to time that made that quote, not the news station itself. So, well, according to the info you provided I guess ABC News sees nothing wrong with the video. The availability of the video on their website may also be a clue, since if they believed it would cause some type of catastrophe I would hope they would take it off the site (or at least they would in some type of perfect idealist world).
Maybe it’s because I’m in the middle of writing my thesis, but misquoting and poor references are really freakin annoying.
Comment by Brian on 25 April 2007 at 7:41 am:
I don’t believe what I believe because the Daily Illini said so, Kevin. Billy made an allegation against me, I cited several examples unequivocally proving him wrong, the Daily Illini being among them.
And yes, the ABC News consultant wasn’t a regular employee. He’s an expert in the psychology of criminals, so I guess there’s no way that could help my argument at all.
I used some broad language for some of these. I would think that was obvious when I cited “MSNBC” as one of the examples and NBC is the news organization that aired the video. Given how inarguably wrong Billy is on this point, I felt entitled to a little rhetorical flourish.
Comment by Augur on 25 April 2007 at 8:51 am:
Billy - many public figures will agree with Brian, generally its easy to score political points by attacking the media. It’s a much tougher political storm to say that the news media essentially did their jobs, and like it or not, this is news.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 25 April 2007 at 8:56 am:
Brian,
It’s true that you found some people equally confused as you. But you state that “MSNBC” thinks Billy is stupid, when really you mean that ONE opinions columnist that works for a massive company like MSNBC thinks Billy is stupid.
Furthermore, there are millions of people who distribute their opinions on the Internet, you found a few people who agree with you, congratulations. But finding support among those millions of authors does not actually provide you with any new or tenable arguments, it just shows that you finally learned how to use Google.
Nice try though, that was all very flashy and intimidating with bold blue links and angry diction. Oh my, I’m so scared of Brian Pierce’s intellectual prowess…hahahahaa.
Comment by J. Prescott on 25 April 2007 at 9:12 am:
Gentlemen -
If at all possible, could we avoid allowing this conversation into dissolving into “your mama” and “my daddy can beat up your daddy” pissing contest?
But, if it does come to that, I think it should be disseminated on the blog, because there should be no censorship and there is no such thing as too much information in this case.
Comment by Brian on 25 April 2007 at 9:13 am:
Billy,
That’s some effective misdirection there. Very good the way you made it seem as though I was arguing that because a lot of people agree with me that I’m right, when in fact I was merely responding to YOUR absurd allegation that no “reasonable public figure” agrees with my “untenable” position. If you were less of a jackass we’d argue the merits of the position, but instead you make nonsense assertions that NO REASONBLE PERSON could ever agree with me, or go off on rants about censorship that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
If, like J. Prescott, you believe in basically NO standard for journalistic restraint and that there is an obligation for news organizations to report anything associated with any news story that has any shred of informational value to it, then go ahead and say so. I assert that not every shred of information has enough value to make it worth suffering the negative consequences of its publication. But keep in mind that the vast, vast, vast majority of both public and expert opinion will back me up on that point (if not the specific issue at hand of Cho’s video, which obviously reasonable people of all levels of expertise can disagree on).
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 25 April 2007 at 9:15 am:
Brian, it wasn’t misdirection, I just wanted to make sure that we were clear that your little rampage there wasn’t about the merits of the core argument, I agree with you there.
Now please respond to the chorus of complaints that the descriptions of the links you posted were completely dishonest and misleading…
Comment by Evan on 25 April 2007 at 9:15 am:
BJM wrote:
Also, I seriously doubt there are any intelligent, reasonable public figures out there who agree with you on this one pal…but I’d be pleased to see the list that you have compiled to support that point. Don’t worry, I won’t wait up at night for it, I realize that it doesn’t exist and that you were just posturing in order to distract from an untenable position.
Just sayin’. Sounds like you’re moving the goalposts farther out now, Billy, or changing the argument that you framed yourself. I’m not sure why you made such an extreme statement in the first place.
Comment by J. Prescott on 25 April 2007 at 9:17 am:
Gentlemen -
Your mother.
Now that I have conformed to the most recent posts, I just wanted to clarify. I do believe in some journalistic restraint. The most obvious example is if knew about D-Day on June 1st, I wouldn’t have reported it. But unless it is blatantly obvious that the reporting of news would lead to massive loss of lives or is a state secret of ultimate import, I would report it.
Just wanted to clarify my position.
Comment by Evan on 25 April 2007 at 9:19 am:
That was in response to Billy’s 9:56 A.M. comment. Looks like I’m a little too slow.
Comment by Brian on 25 April 2007 at 9:37 am:
Billy,
The “chorus of complaints” being you and Kevin? Um…ok: I was matching the level of obvious overstatement displayed in the comment you wrote to provoke me. Nothing about that distracts from the fact that every link I used IS by any objective observer’s standard a “reasonable public figure” and that you are therefore without question completely, utterly, embarrassingly wrong.
Now would you please articulate the merits of the position and state exactly what your standard is for journalistic restraint, if you have one? J. Prescott just stated his standard rather succinctly and without being a total douche. I think his standard is wrong, as I’ve stated. The two of us have successfully discovered a point of valid disagreement, which might hopefully provide some small level of enlightenment to whatever readership this thread still has after you started acting like an arrogant, overreaching child. Let’s see if you can manage to articulate a standard of your own or if you will continue being a total moron.
Comment by Brian on 25 April 2007 at 9:38 am:
That should say “address,” not “articulate” in the first line of the second paragraph.
Comment by illinikc33 on 25 April 2007 at 9:44 am:
“…intelligent, reasonable public figures out there who agree with you on this one.”
So you’re saying the DI is now intelligent and reasonable. Hypocritical? Didn’t the DI print snapshots of the video? Hypocritical part deux? What a crock.
For every forensic psychiatrist who thinks the video never should have aired I’ll find you one that says they should have.
And since when is a random psychiatrist a well-known public figure? Give me some big names here, not more guests on people’s blogs. That’s what I want to see.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 25 April 2007 at 9:47 am:
My statement about no reasonable public figure agreeing with Brian was obvious hyperbole, ya’ll need to chill about it. What I will stand by though is that most(90%) of free speech and journalism scholars will cringe at Brian’s quaint proposals.
I’m going to make a new post in 5 minutes, we can move the debate this particular subsection of the debate there for organizational purposes.
Comment by Brandon on 25 April 2007 at 10:39 am:
“Brian, when did you become such an intellectually dishonest hack? The more you write, the more you embarrass yourself.”
Billy when did you become such a self-righteous asshole? The more you talk the more you insist you must be right and everyone else is wrong.
Comment by Jon on 25 April 2007 at 11:12 am:
I thought I’d expand on Brandon’s comment regarding the following quote by Billy:
“Brian, when did you become such an intellectually dishonest hack? The more you write, the more you embarrass yourself.”
Billy, over the course of your blogging at Urbanagora, you have suggested that:
-Liberals are inherently unhappy and pessimistic people.
-Republican pragmatism = pragmatism
-Democratic pragmatism = deception
-Senator McCain’s flip-flopping = a political necessity
-Senator Clinton’s flip-flopping = proof that she’s a monster who cannot be trusted.
The list goes on. This relentless hypocrisy can be found in almost every post where you attempt political punditry. Pot calling the kettle black?
Comment by tet on 25 April 2007 at 11:40 am:
Heh, heh. Vox Day said the other day that “pragmatism is merely another word for an absence of principle.”
In any case, all of this crap is turning into attacks and dick-waving. I’ve long ago lost interest in the subject with all the ad hom going on here.
I suggest you all come over to my place, do a Wii Boxing tournament and I’ll buy the winner one of ElderWife’s toys to take home as the large-penis prize.
Hell, I am not even going to post on the Code of Ethics thread. Instead, I’ll just ask if I can make a citizen’s arrest of the Fox and CNN commentators that I see every day for Code Violations.
I’ll post tomorrow on a really important topic.
Tom
Comment by illinikc33 on 25 April 2007 at 11:44 am:
“I’ll post tomorrow on a really important topic.”
Please please let it be sex toys!
:)
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 25 April 2007 at 11:57 am:
Jon,
You oversimplifying my points to erect a strawman doesn’t make me a hack.
Brandon,
When did I become such a “self-righteous asshole”? I always have been, but you already knew that so I’m not sure why you ask. But then again, don’t all the regulars on this blog fit that description?
Everyone needs to chill, I still love you all…this is just in good fun.
Billy
Comment by tet on 25 April 2007 at 12:05 pm:
It’s science stuff, Kevin. One of the most signficant discoveries of this century has just occurred and I’m going to discuss it.
I’ll talk about sex toys some other time.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 25 April 2007 at 12:41 pm:
Ooh. Is it the Earth-like planet?
Comment by kofi it is fun to daydream about though on 25 April 2007 at 12:43 pm:
I’m guessing Tom talks about 581c. I wouldn’t be surprised if he mentioned that idea of going 1/2 speed of light, which would make travel to the planet only 41 years. If so, I’ll comment that light goes about 3500 times faster than the fastest thing we got planned (a solar sail) making time of travel 71,750. I’ll be dead.
Comment by kofi the thats what i get for adding substance to a comment on 25 April 2007 at 12:43 pm:
and Brian beat me to it.
Comment by tet on 25 April 2007 at 12:58 pm:
Yep, you guys are right about the subject. My working title is “Fermi and Drake.”
I don’t want to talk about it any more right now, lest I dilute the points I wish to make before I am completely finished.
With any luck and some undisturbed time, I’ll have it up before noon. I would have had it done today, but I got sidetracked by an email asking an important scientific question that I had to answer for a layperson.
Tom
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 25 April 2007 at 1:44 pm:
P.S. I am not a hack. Brian is not a hack. No one who regularly contributes to this blog is a hack…except for maybe Augur ;)