´óÏó´«Ã½

What about the wishes of the police investigating the crime that the material not be broadcast? What about the feelings of those affected by the crime?

You seem to justify showing the material by asserting the material is of secondary importance. But that does not justify showing the material, it merely asserts making the video etc was not as bad as pulling the trigger. But the issue is not how bad it was that he made the stuff in relation to the horror of the murders, but whether it should have been broadcast. How does categorizing his making his publicity package an act of secondary significance make showing it right? The issue pertinent to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is the showing of the stuff.

You say, "I would not have thought that someone that deranged... would have carefully considered in a rational way what sort of extra effect the publication of the video might have on those associated with his victims or the public." But this is sheer nonsense. Firstly, whether or not the murderer thought about that is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should have been broadcast, it is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s judgment or lack thereof that is under discussion, not Cho Seung-hui's. Secondly, the murderer very obviously DID give a great deal of thought to the extra effect the material would have, THAT'S WHT HE PREPPARED IT AND SENT IT TO THE MEDIA.

You say one gets a better understanding of how deranged Cho Seung-hui was by seeing the video, trying to justify seeing it and thus the broadcasting of it. But actually I don't need to see it to know how deranged he was. I haven't seen it (except for an odd photo or two here and there I couldn't help but see), and I can tell that he was a very deeply disturbed and dangerous young man.

I think you are really missing the point here with regards this 'glorfying' thing. You say you "did not broadcast any coverage that could be interpreted as glorifying Cho's act." But it is Cho Seung-hui's material itself that glorifies his act; the material does not need your journalistic context to interpret it badly for it to glorify his infamy, it does its own publicity work, regardless of the journalistic overlays. You show it, you are the vehicle for the publicity.

You are intoxicated by the idea that 'you help us understand the issues'; it is the media's conceit. You say, "The Ten O'Clock News on ´óÏó´«Ã½ One looked at issues about depression, and the relationship between movie images and the images that he shot AS A MEANS OF INCREASING THE BROADER AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDING" (emphasis mine). This might be difficult for you to accept, but the reality is we don't depend on you for understanding; we look to you for factual reporting, for information, for news. We do not need your help to understand. I would greatly pity anyone dependent upon the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or any other media organization for understanding.
You might think, erroneously I would say, you’re increasing our understanding, but that is your reasoning for showing the material, it does not address any of the reasons for not showing it, it just explains that you felt justified disregarding the reasons it should not have been shown because you think you can help us understand.

But if you cannot help us understand, what then? What if your basic premise is at fault and has adversely affected your judgment?

If you can help us understand by showing us the material, then tell me, if you would, having seen it as you have, do you now understand why that young man took those guns and killed all those other people on that university campus?

I think it is of very great interest that you are prepared to try to engage with your audience so directly in this blog (although some of the editor's here seem less enthusiastic about it), but I have to say I think your response is evasive and insubstantial and typically so.

I suspect there never was any question at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ about whether you would show the murderer's publicity material, it was only ever a matter of working how to make the justification sound good.

Trying to justify the unjustifiable. Sound familiar?

Er...yes!

"The carrying out of the killing" was indeed central, but how much of the peripheral, "broadcasting of the video" was informative or enlightening in the reporting of the massacre. Did you in fact consult with psychiatric professionals before making your decision to run the 'prequel' video. If not, would that not be a worthwhile consideration in future incidents that you will no doubt seek the opportunity to splash, near-instantaneously, under the Broken News banner! :-/

Is this really setting - and justifying - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News precedent for a knee-jerkier business-as-usual? 'Oh! Calamity!'

With regards to the oft levelled criticism in blog feedback (and your last one) - that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is resorting to gutter journalism (i.e. showing this video) in order to get higher ratings - whether or not this is true, I feel that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is stuck between a rock and a hard place, with regards to this accusation.

If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are to maintain what are, in all fairness, high standards of journalistic integrity but to lose ratings, then they would be widely accused of being arrogant, irrelevant and a waste of licence payers money.

On the other hand, if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were to tabloid up (and probably increase ratings - after all the Sun is the most popular newspaper in Britain) then they would be accused of dumbing down, losing integrity and being, funnily enough, a waste of licence payers money.

Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer who killed 32 of his fellow students and faculty at Virgina Tech in Blackburg, VA., will probably go down in history with more acclaim and recognition than most poets and artists. What does that say about our civilization... and especially about Amerikan kulture, perhaps one of the most violent kultures in human history?

In my opinion, the videos left by the gunman should not have been shown, for the simple reason that that was what he wanted. There was no need for any tv station to show the videos or the photographs (other than to raise ratings)and a synopsis of the content could have been given instead.

Showing the videos will not have helped anyone, especially the victims' families, friends and Cho's family. The videos only serve to make what he did more media-friendly. He clearly wanted to get his (rather twisted and disturbed) message out accross the world and the media has done this for him.

"Several" people had posted comments stating they thought the showing of this video had given the gunman the celebrity status he wanted? Of course, you mean several dozen within hours, and in a day a hundred or so. Now nearly 200. Most of which say the same thing - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ make a big mistake here.

To argue that the killing and not the video-showing was the crime is a little cheap. There can still be no excuse for this.

If Cho was not seeking celebrity status, why did he send his video to NBC?

Could you stop using the word "deranged" when dealing with mentally ill people? Even when they're involved in this kind of horror, we should be a little more understanding.

To make a bad call in the heat of the moment is bad enough but to attempt to justify it with such fuzzy logic, when you have had time reflect is truly shameful

'Are people suggesting that the likelihood of a "suicide note" video getting shown by media outlets might motivate someone deeply disturbed to carry out violent and criminal acts?'

Short answer - yes.

Herostratus burned down the Temple in Artemis so that 'his name might be spread through the whole world' - that was in 356 BC.
The Greek authorities forbade the mentioning of his name to deny him fame, but of course, someone had to publish...Some things don't change.

You showed the video but you may as well have not - all you did was ponce around looking at the "issues" around what he did - depression, movie images, yawn - while as far as I've seen on the ´óÏó´«Ã½, you've not really looked at Cho's message itself. Were his claims of racism justified? Why is Asian diversity not better understood in the US? If you have looked at this and I've missed it, I apologise.
Remember, a young man sacrified his own life to get this message across. It was a terrible thing he did to the others, but please don't call him "deranged" and ignore the message he died to spread. I have the feeling from reading your post above you watched the video with a very closed mind and a pre-conceived view of the angles you would take.

Guy Fox,

American kulture (it's culture) the most violent in human history? That is stretching it a bit don't you think? Studied much history have you? The sad fact is this kid had mental problems. Due to certain laws, his mental health records were not provided to the authorities. Had his history been known, he could not have purchased a gun. As to whether it was appropriate to show his "death video", to fully understand what motivated this kid is important. Perhaps a transcript might have been better, but that would not have conveyed the rage or showed his mental state. As to the use of the word deranged to describe him, that is exactly what he was. It appears that the word deranged offends the sensitivities of some on this post. Being sensitive to his mental problem is what prevented the system from keeping a gun out of his hands. Being sensitive to his mental problem is what prevented VA Tech officials from getting him help that might have prevented this from happening. 31 people died because the system was sensitive to this deranged individual. That should be the focus here.