tapmag

Exactly one year ago, at 9:01 am, Cho Seung-Hui paid $14.40 for a U.S. Postal Service express parcel, two hours after he had killed two students at a dormitory of the Virginia Tech University.

The package was bound to go to NBC’s headquarters; the Zip code and street address were incorrect, so it reached the network with a little delay. The parcel contained 27 quicktime-files with videos of Cho, several pictures and a collection of his writings. Cho signed with „A Ishmael“ and returned to the Blacksburg campus to murder another 30 people before shooting himself.

NBC went on to air parts of Cho Seung-Hui’s “Multimedia Manifesto” – a decision which has been widely attacked, as well as it has been defended. What guided the editors at the Rockefeller Center to impart those disturbing communications of a multiple murderer? Why are the decisions of TV producers still relevant in the age of the Internet video? And when does Cho become too much Cho?

Cho’s Drama Plan

At first glance, a lot of things speak against releasing the package. There is the intention of the killer. Cho wanted stardom; he was granted prominence. Do you remember the name of the Jewish Holocaust survivor who got killed because he tried to protect his students against Cho’s gunfire? Hardly anyone does. Cho’s face is well-known, however. The extensive media coverage blessed him with a virtual after-life. He is now forever engraved in history with a gun in his hands, pointing at the camera. With the help of a sensationalist media, eager to draw attention with all measures possible, the former outsider finally received all the attention he wanted.

The multi-media package that Cho sent out was packed with all the sparkling and shiny accessories needed to create a visual wallpaper for the reports about his killing spree. Needless to say, Cho’s face became the background to endless re-runs of the same news during the first days of coverage. The networks cheerfully accepted Cho’s gift and plastered their virtual studio walls with his videos, notes and photographs. Cho was everywhere – his ubiquity became possible because NBC acted accordingly to Cho’s drama plan. The last act of the Cho Show had begun.

The drama was so intense, the victims’ families could not sit through. Several of them refused to give interviews to NBC, after learning about the video, because they felt focus was on the wrong person. To them, NBC kept fueling their pain, unnecessarily exacerbating their grief with gory pictures. Where the public should hear about the lives taken, the news told the story of the Grim Reaper.

In fact, news stories which focuse extensively on a killer have serious consequences. There is evidence for a vicious cycle of copycat killings that is triggered by excessive media coverage of rampages like the one at Virginia Tech. Revealing too much Cho leads to more Cho. Clearly a reason not to air his manifesto, because it could cause more madness, pain and harm.

In this context, consider the following statement:“The massacre at Virginia Tech is newsworthy and it is the media’s job to report on it, but we believe the media have a responsibility to balance the public’s need to know against the potential danger of provoking copycat behavior. The APA urges, for the public good, that all media cease airing the graphic Cho materials.” American Psychiatric Association, News Release 07-25

Why airing the video was correct

To further judge the consequences which society faces if such videos are shown, let’s contrast them to the opposite situation. Let’s consider the public debate without the video; a big mess of false accusations, immature judgments and wild guesses on the nature of the killer. The debate most likely would evolve around one inevitable question – what made him do it? Everybody will have an opinion, and surely everything will get blamed, from video games to the social pecking order that exists at every college.

Well, Cho himself provided the answer. He even videotaped it. Cho’s mediated remains, full of paranoia and mad ramblings, are a clear proof of his insanity. The videos make one point; the quest to understand the killer’s motives cannot be accomplished. They demonstrate how unpreventable the Virginia Tech shooting was. Cho was mad.

If this type of information is out there, can we blame journalists for making it available to the public? It’s an obligation hard to dismiss. Censorship is out of the question; there is no legal rule that held the editors back. For good reason, the flow of information should be free, especially for news of such value. But what about self-censorship?

Even the victims were undecided

Unarguably, there are a few more things to consider than a well-informed society. Journalists have to weigh up the positive aspects of publication against the dignity of the victims and the personal feelings of anyone affected. Relatives, friends and co-students of those who got killed might be offended by the pictures of the killer. However, even this group was discordant about the video. Some parents canceled interviews. Others were glad that the release of the material gave them a face to stick to the madness, an enemy to focus on. But, only because the video was out there did it become possible to take these stances. Irrespective of the individual stand, the opportunity to form an opinion should not be denied to the public. Seen in this light, the decision to air the video was correct.

How did NBC respond to this dilemma?

“To me there was never a debate. This was news. This is journalism. The debate was, how can we pare back, be as sensitive as possible in editing all of this garbage and profanity, to give a sense of what we have here.“ Brian Williams, Anchorman of NBC Nightly News

NBC decision was to release only parts of the package. Following the initial airing, most of the bigger news broadcasts used the material to visualize their news shows. They did however decide to cut back on the usage of Cho’s face after the warning from the American Psychiatric Association that copy-cat killings might be triggered. Only very few, mainly foreign news shows resisted the temptation in the first place and limited themselves to stills and a description of the videos. But regardless of these efforts, the information was out there. For a couple of days, Cho occupied the US’ TV screens.

No Choice Left for NBC?

Was there really a choice to the editors? Quite frequently, video or pictures of newsworthy events make headlines. Before Cho’s “multi-media manifesto” there was Saddam’s execution, the decapitation of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and the Abu Ghraib prison photos. Most of these documents reach the public through various channels – National TV, Blogs, Satellite TV, YouTube. While networks can decide to show certain parts and to blank out the explicit stuff, they are well aware that the viewers can find the uncut version with the click of their mouse. The mainstream media has long lost their role as gatekeepers of information to the Internet.

Still, a difference remains between broadcasting to the world and uploading to the net. TV producers provide entertainment; their viewers do not actively search for all the gruesome details. YouTube viewers do, it takes an active effort to find the video there. On TV, the video simply comes on after your favorite afternoon talk show is over. This is why NBC bleeped out all of Cho’s swear words. After all, there might be children in front of the TV. With the bleep the TV producers acknowledged that they are not free of any responsibility, in contrast to the unanymous masses on the net. TV broadcasts aim to attract the most attention, but are not allowed to do so at any cost.

No More “Gore”-ification

Everything Cho said and recorded can turn up on the net. He will find an audience there, hungry for relics of yet another serial killer. But “gore”-ifying Cho on TV? This crosses the moral boundaries society draws with licensing TV stations. It simply is the wrong response to a tragedy. It is important and necessary to give a face to the unthinkable. It is irresponsible to let the face take over. TV has to deliver a frame to what happens on the screen. When Cho points his gun to the camera, then this is more than a great scene to use as a teaser for the evening news. These documents are part of a larger story that needs to be told in full view.

Editors have to scale down these larger than life clips. Show the videos, but also show the bigger picture. Put Cho in context – because that is what his monstrous crime is asking for. Explain the psychological mechanism behind the videos. They should be presented as an isolated element in the story that demands reflection, by viewers and producers alike. And broach the issue of media ethics itself. There is no better place to release some air out of Cho’s megalomaniac self-depictions than the TV. Editors just need to find the valve.

By Kolja Langnese