Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There is nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else do we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid who dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to be a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is.
Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them to air to air them and to air them so quickly. It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. Now NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about the remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, of course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. Bekah --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > you do that? > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not > know. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > Heath, > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but > I'm > > going to reply anyway. > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > > How should they cover it?" > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > satisfy > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were > to > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > > any copycat massacre. > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very > few > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > expect > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > technology > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > way. > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result > of > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the > internet > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that > they > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > > has been." > > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying > into > > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what > > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. > > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on > > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a > lot > > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
