The 'Eagle Times' Student Newspaper: Editorials

Controversy surrounds video broadcast

Some question NBC's decision

Commentary by Trent Strunk

May 03, 2007

The United States was shocked by the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech on April 16, but what has sparked even more controversy and criticism is the decision of NBC to air Seung-Hui Cho's videos and photos explaining why he orchestrated the shooting.

For many, the problem is that the images were far too graphic and violent in nature to be shown to the public. However, there are some who believe that the video needed to be seen and that, although the pictures were violent and the videos disturbing, they are no different than seeing dead soldiers on the news. The question we must ask ourselves is: where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable media?

When you look at the history of America and the development of modern-day society, one of the most important rights guaranteed has been the Freedom of the Press. The ability of newspapers and individuals to publish what they feel important for the public to know has allowed the United States to change and adapt to the evolution of culture.

The complaints, though, have been based around the question: was the video really news? Many have argued that the world didn't need to see the video and pictures of a gun-toting Cho and that airing the images gave the killer the 15 minutes of fame that he wanted. The airings could also encourage copycat killers who yearn for their own 15 minutes of fame.

The fact remains that the video and the pictures were news. They allowed the public the chance to get inside of Cho's troubled mind and understand why the massacre happened.

Although it was a horrible crime and will never be forgotten by those who watched the news coverage, and especially by those who were at Virginia Tech, do not look at this event alone. Look at what society has been watching before April 16, 2007.

Take for example 9/11. Many can remember watching "Good Morning America" that day and seeing the two towers come down live and in full color. We didn't know it at the time, but we had just watched the murdering of 2,973 people who were stuck in the towers as they violently collapsed in a ball of smoke, dust and flames. So for people who say that the Cho's video is too graphic, watch the twin towers fall again and look at it with that same mind-set.

Not only have the World Trade Center attacks been viewed again and again, but there are also a multitude of other videos and pictures depicting graphic acts. For instance, anyone who watches the "History Channel" has seen John F. Kennedy shot in the head at least 100 times, and every single one of us has either seen soldiers and civilians who were mutilated, tortured, and starved from past wars or bodies filled with shrapnel from car bombings lining the streets today.

We are exposed to these images every day and media watchdogs have never raised this same type of uproar over seeing a dead Iraqi citizen. Are the bodies any less important because they're in some far away land? Are those images of holocaust victims and dead soldiers any less important because the events occurred long before many of us were born?

Before we can criticize NBC for what they aired, we must first look at what we are exposed to on CNN, Fox, BBC, and MSNBC. The fact is we see violent images every day, and when we see this violence in the news and history channels, we simply disregard it as just mere news. However, many are chastising NBC and other media for airing a video that answered many questions the public had about Cho. The response seems quite hypocritical.

So where should the line be drawn? Well, it shouldn't represent an extreme. Instead, there needs to be a middle ground established, somewhere in between showing every violent image of video and showing no images at all.