The package is being described by some as "unprecedented," and by others as "a spree killer's EPK." Cho is now tagged by some as "the first Web 2.0 psycho killer," and the net result may be a possible template — even a challenge — for aspiring mass murderers.
– – – – – –
LISTEN:
"The Virginia Tech Shooter's Digital Mark." Link to archived audio (Real/Win). Here's an MP3 Link. Or, listen to this report as an MP3 in the "Xeni Tech" podcast (subscribe via iTunes here). NPR "Xeni Tech" archives here.
Also check out a related commentary about how to properly print and pronounce Korean names, filed yesterday by NPR "Day to Day" producer and contributor Ki-Min Sung: Link to audio.
– – – – – –
This isn't just about disintermediation, intermediation or even "the media". It's about no longer depending on The Media alone. Naturally, the media still have roles to play. They are just no longer the only ones playing those roles.
When Cho walked around shooting people, those in the best position to help each other were right there. The media that mattered most then, in real time, was direct contact by voice, hand signals, and mobile phones. People helping other people. That's still true now.
Again, I'm not saying that The Media are bad, or wrong. Just that we no longer live in a world where we get our best information only from top-down few-to-many sources. This is about AND logic, not OR.
Also, I am not saying that disclosing this stuff won't have bad consequences. It will certainly have many consequences. So will concealing it.
(thanks, Dave Winer).
Here's a related piece Yang wrote for Salon.com: Link to "Killer reflection." ("Cho and other Asian shooters were portrayed as "smart but quiet" and "fundamentally foreign." What do these stereotypes reveal, and what do they obscure?")
In between the two rounds of shootings, Cho sent NBC a manifesto containing videos and photographs, some of which have been shown by other broadcasters. Did the rival networks have to pay for the images?
No. The package falls under the doctrine of fair use, which gives networks the ability to borrow unique and newsworthy information from each other. Another example might be an important interview with a high-ranking official that only one network scored. That meant that the networks were able to take the Cho footage from NBC at no cost, immediately after it aired.
(Thanks, Keith Anderson)
The past 48 hours have been one long, ongoing demonstration of what Jill Godmilow, in both her incomparable film What Farocki Taught and her essay "What's Wrong with the Liberal Documentary?, labels "the pornography of the real":
The "pornography of the real" involves the highly suspect, psychic pleasure of viewing "the moving picture real" … a powerful pornographic interest in real people, real death, real destruction and real suffering, especially of "others", commodities in film. These "pleasures" are not brought to our attention. The pornographic aspect is masked in the documentary by assurances that the film delivers only the actually existing real – thus sincere truths that we need to know about.
[…]I think of storytelling as a kind of citizenship, so I don't blame people for wanting to know the stories unfolding in Blacksburg, nor do I blame journalists for telling those stories. Still, how one gathers the facts, why you gather them, and the way you tell them can't be separated from the story you're telling.
Link, and here's another post from his site.
– – – – – – – – – –
Previously on BB:
– – – – – – – – – –
"We know we are in effect airing the words of a murderer tonight," Williams said as he introduced reporter Pete Williams. But those words were not just of a murderer. They were of a sick man who had regressed so far into delusion that he considered his actions necessary. He claimed he had no choice but to slaughter the 32 people who became his victims. 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.
Link.
In interviews yesterday several competitors questioned some of NBC's decisions concerning the way it distributed the images, which went out accompanied by a list of rules for how they could be used, including points like: "No Internet use. No archival use. Do not resell," and "Mandatory credit; NBC News." (…) And while the rules about usage were fairly standard for the television news business, [CBS News VP Paul] Friedman said that "in this instance it seemed inappropriate" for NBC to be so proprietary about material of such sensitive nature.
One aspect that clearly irritated many of NBC's competitors was the impression of the logo "NBC News," which the network burned into every image from the material. Mr. Friedman of CBS said he had thought about calling NBC executives Wednesday night to suggest they remove the logo simply to distance the network from the material. "It may backfire for them to be so closely associated with footage that makes people's flesh crawl," Mr. Friedman said.
Link to NYT story. Others are asking the same question: Link to Romenesko forum.
READER COMMENTS: your responses and related discussion after the jump.
Steven Silvers says,
Where there's tragedy, there's a press release selling something. Less than 48 hours after the shootings, a national telecom company issues a press release blaming Virginia Tech management, and suggesting that the murders would not have happened if the school had purchased its call-alert services. Link.
CJ says,
Perennial LOL generator Fox News endorses the opinion that the devil made Cho Seung-Hui kill several people. It's rambling, reactionary, involves several ellipses, and is just generally insulting to everyone that might even so much as look at the URL.
Drew says,
Here is a story about police in the Sacramento area looking for a copycat who threatened to, "carry out a rampage that 'will make Virginia Tech look mild.'"
PeaceLove says,
Among the tragedy coming out of Virgina Tech this week is the loss of 22 year old Dan O'Neil, a talented musician. His website contains some beautiful songs you might want to check out: Link.
Adam Selvidge says,
Chris over at cynical-c has a list (with links) of who the media is blaming for the VT shootings, including, but not limited to: It's the fault of violent video games. It's the fault of movies. It's that no other students were armed. It's the cowardly students who didn't rush the shooter. It's the first victim's fault It's secularism's fault. It's the Muslims' and/or foreigners' fault.
Brad Flora says,
What's Google charging the NYTimes for "VTech Shooting" ads? The Times and Washington Post have, rather pathetically, started buying search result ads from Google to funnel traffic to their VTech shooting coverage. Whose bright idea was this and what's Google charging them? AdWords offers an answer, as detailed in this post, but how accurate is it? And what does this mean for how big news will break in the future? Link.
Andrew Jimenez says,
I know media coverage of the Virgina Tech shooting is probably overwhelming at this point, but I just posted on my blog an opinion piece on the coverage thus far–in particular, today's (yesterday, now) Newsday–as well as glorification of killers in general. Link.
Jeff says,
Yesterday, I accused MSNBC of glorifying the Virginia Tech shooter by putting his PR package across their Web site cover page. Today, I got an interesting comment on my blog from Jim Ray, one of the editors there (I used to work there many years ago).
"It's never easy when a media organization becomes part of the story, but we're not some monolithic block taking marching orders from our corporate overlords. There are real people making real decisions about how to handle these situations and I, for one, am proud of how we handled this one."
But if you look on Ray's blog for yesterday, he has a screenshot of ABC screenshotting MSNBC's scoop ABC News posted a screen grab of our site on their homepage today. Rock the meta!"
This does nothing to back up the idea that NBC handled this in a responsible manner.
I agree these materials belong in the public domain, at some point. But the front page should feature photos of victims. The killer and his PR package should be relegated to the back.
By publishing these on the front page, MSNBC gave every other media outlet a pass to republish them. They won't publish graphic photos from Iraq … so why this?
Link.
