|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 17, 2007 23:36:44 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 18, 2007 11:06:29 GMT -5
What saddens and enrages me to no end is both sides of the gun control debate, within hours, immediately peddling their wares (other groups did this, too - this was just the most egregious). This tragedy would have been prevented if gun laws were stricter. This tragedy would have been prevented if everyone was packing. No one has any time to grieve - everyone just wants to score points. I couldn't agree more. It's like lawyers soliciting at a funeral - it just makes my blood boil. Let the victims rest in peace. Let the Virginia Tech community mourn and heal. If us outsiders get involved it should be to help those at Virginia Tech who need our support, not to promote our own selfish goals. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Apr 18, 2007 18:04:07 GMT -5
Speaking of people not giving the victims' families time to heal - I'm not sure I agree with NBC and MSNBC airing portions of the shooter's video.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 18, 2007 20:00:19 GMT -5
I am just tuning in to the media coverage of this tragedy, and it seems to me that it shouldn't be analyzed through the gun control lens (leaving the issue of whether that is appropriate aside), but, rather, the lens of terrorism.
By releasing photos and such to the media, the killer has placed himself in the sad, disgusting company of individuals like suicide bombers in the Middle East.
What is striking in these few minutes of media coverage I've watched is how our media does not seem to be looking at this comparison but wants to cover up the home grown component of this terrorism. Forget where he bought the gun or when he bought the gun. Forget how "disturbed" this individual was. Can we just call it terrorism?
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Apr 18, 2007 20:25:16 GMT -5
I don't know if its terrorism either - it might fit and academic definition of terrorism but doesn't really seem to fit with other acts most people would classify as terrorism. I think the one thing that we can agree about in this case is that it shows the way mental health help is integrated into schools and universities needs to change.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 18, 2007 20:33:21 GMT -5
Nothing like turning on NBC News and hearing this person - who was obviously severely disturbed - saying he "had to do this". A massive, massive, error.
And you really can't call it terrorism. Suicide bombers have a structure behind them that exploits the attack for maximum political capital. He was just acting alone - his goal was to cause terror, but it wasn't terrorism.
The other news story that occurred to me today was the guy who was kicked out of GW a few months ago (I think) for going to the emergency room with suicidal thoughts. GW got pilloried then for its stance. As it begins to appear that the shooter was truly mentally disturbed, one item that will get brought into the debate is how to integrate those with mental illness into college life while combining their rights with the safety of the community.
No easy answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 18, 2007 21:18:27 GMT -5
I am just tuning in to the media coverage of this tragedy, and it seems to me that it shouldn't be analyzed through the gun control lens (leaving the issue of whether that is appropriate aside), but, rather, the lens of terrorism. By releasing photos and such to the media, the killer has placed himself in the sad, disgusting company of individuals like suicide bombers in the Middle East. What is striking in these few minutes of media coverage I've watched is how our media does not seem to be looking at this comparison but wants to cover up the home grown component of this terrorism. Forget where he bought the gun or when he bought the gun. Forget how "disturbed" this individual was. Can we just call it terrorism? Interesting comments, Jersey, and I think "what defines terrorism" is an interesting debate (consider, for example, that some historians argue the first terrorist attack on the U.S. occured when the British burned the White House and much of Washington in 1814). And I won't disagree with you (although I'm not sure whether I want to totally agree with you either). While this killer may not have had the backing of an organization, and did not seek to intimidate a government, he did cause violence and death for promotion of his own sick, selfish cause. I don't have a problem with referring to him as a terrorist. Here's how Virginia's anti-terrorism statute defines terrorism. Whether or not the killer's actions fit the theoretical definition of terrorism, it is arguable that they fit the statutory definition of terrorism according to the Virginia Code. leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-46.4 |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 18, 2007 21:26:01 GMT -5
I am just tuning in to the media coverage of this tragedy, and it seems to me that it shouldn't be analyzed through the gun control lens (leaving the issue of whether that is appropriate aside), but, rather, the lens of terrorism. By releasing photos and such to the media, the killer has placed himself in the sad, disgusting company of individuals like suicide bombers in the Middle East. What is striking in these few minutes of media coverage I've watched is how our media does not seem to be looking at this comparison but wants to cover up the home grown component of this terrorism. Forget where he bought the gun or when he bought the gun. Forget how "disturbed" this individual was. Can we just call it terrorism? Interesting comments, Jersey, and I think "what defines terrorism" is an interesting debate (consider, for example, that some historians argue the first terrorist attack on the U.S. occured when the British burned the White House and much of Washington in 1814). And I won't disagree with you (although I'm not sure whether I want to totally agree with you either). While this killer may not have had the backing of an organization, and did not seek to intimidate a government, he did cause violence and death for promotion of his own sick, selfish cause. I don't have a problem with referring to him as a terrorist. Here's how Virginia's anti-terrorism statute defines terrorism. Whether or not the killer's actions fit the theoretical definition of terrorism, it is arguable that they fit the statutory definition of terrorism according to the Virginia Code. leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-46.4Other historians claim the first act of terrorism was by Lord Jeffrey (strangely, the mascot of Amherst College) who intentionally handed over disease ridden blankets to the natives as part of his colonial "governance". |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 18, 2007 22:51:00 GMT -5
Does it really matter what we call it? What that killer did was absolutely awful. He killed for no reason or cause whatsoever other than himself. Murdering innocent human beings is a despicable thing to do, and when it's your peers that you're murdering it's all the worse.
Today in America we like to think that terrorism is the worst act a human being can commit, but I think that what this murderer did was worse than terrorism.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 19, 2007 0:28:45 GMT -5
The other news story that occurred to me today was the guy who was kicked out of GW a few months ago (I think) for going to the emergency room with suicidal thoughts. GW got pilloried then for its stance. As it begins to appear that the shooter was truly mentally disturbed, one item that will get brought into the debate is how to integrate those with mental illness into college life while combining their rights with the safety of the community. No easy answers. That's a great point. There are, of course, a much larger amount of people with suicidal thoughts than those who go on killing rampages, but it is a difficult question. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on Apr 19, 2007 9:17:01 GMT -5
Getting back to St. Pete's point about whether NBC / MSNBC should be airing this...
This lunatic got exactly what he wanted -- a national forum, thanks to NBC and MSNBC. You can't help but worry whether like-minded lunatics will be encouraged to take similar action.
I would hope for some self-policing or self-censorship, since the last thing I want is for the government to get involved in censorship issues. But unfortunately, our media has shown time and again that ratings and sensationalism will overcome any attempts to filter what should be aired.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 19, 2007 10:41:07 GMT -5
Getting back to St. Pete's point about whether NBC / MSNBC should be airing this... This lunatic got exactly what he wanted -- a national forum, thanks to NBC and MSNBC. You can't help but worry whether like-minded lunatics will be encouraged to take similar action. I would hope for some self-policing or self-censorship, since the last thing I want is for the government to get involved in censorship issues. But unfortunately, our media has shown time and again that ratings and sensationalism will overcome any attempts to filter what should be aired. I have no doubt that NBC aired those items for ratings, but I do think that for a lot of people both directly and tangentially related to the attacks, what this kid wrote will help explain the question of "why" which is probably one of their big questions. Will the answer help? I don't know. I've never been through something like this. I can see the concern about encouraging others, but at the same time, telling folks the truth is usually a good thing as well. The negative effects of letting information out always seems to be overstated. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 19, 2007 13:08:49 GMT -5
From a journalistic standpoint, NBC did what was expected of them--they embargoed the news until they got the green light from law enforcement that disclosing the materials did not jeopardize the investigation.
Yes, it was a tough call, but censorship is a slippery slope. Sitting on stories and not disclosing it has its perils.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,909
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 19, 2007 13:21:52 GMT -5
Just like in the case of the Saddam execution videos, not putting them on TV isn't going to have much of an effect in terms of people being able to see them - they'll just get it off the internet. Maybe that's the way it should be - those who don't want to have this on the air don't have to be exposed to it, those who want to see it can. It may be morbid, but studying such statements is instructive in analyzing the attacker's mental state.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 19, 2007 18:54:42 GMT -5
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Apr 19, 2007 20:45:03 GMT -5
Just like in the case of the Saddam execution videos, not putting them on TV isn't going to have much of an effect in terms of people being able to see them - they'll just get it off the internet. Maybe that's the way it should be - those who don't want to have this on the air don't have to be exposed to it, those who want to see it can. It may be morbid, but studying such statements is instructive in analyzing the attacker's mental state. I couldn't agree more. I'm not one for censorship. But I do think that playing the same tape over and over again every 15 minutes on broadcast news is sickening. Even after 9/11, they eventually stopped showing footage of the planes crashing into the towers. If people want to learn about this kid's sick twisted mind, they can get it from the internet. But I don't think it's necessary to bombard people with the same images over and over again. I don't know how to do this perma-link, tiny url thing but for those concerned about the impact that the repeated airing of this video manifesto may have, watch this 5-minute clip from a psychiatrist who consults for ABC News. This is some of the best, spot-on and apparently heart-felt commentary concerning exactly this issue. abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3056176 |
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Apr 19, 2007 21:16:50 GMT -5
I love the BBC and all, but they aren't much more merciful than what we've got over here during any sort of "big story." I was in Britain during 9/11 and they were merciless with airings (and reairings) of the attacks. I heard the US networks put a moratorium on that after a while, but the BBC never stopped.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 20, 2007 10:14:58 GMT -5
afirthionado, I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with NBC (or anyone for that matter) making judgments like this for the rest of us. I don't need a major media corporation deciding whether I'm adult enough or emotionally stable enough to see something.
As for your copycat argument, can you see where your line of reasoning goes? Should we never broadcast the details of a murder for fear of someone gaining inspiration? How does this square with the first amendment? You say you're not one for censorship, but that's exactly what you seem to be advocating.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Apr 20, 2007 12:42:34 GMT -5
afirthionado, I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with NBC (or anyone for that matter) making judgments like this for the rest of us. I don't need a major media corporation deciding whether I'm adult enough or emotionally stable enough to see something. As for your copycat argument, can you see where your line of reasoning goes? Should we never broadcast the details of a murder for fear of someone gaining inspiration? How does this square with the first amendment? You say you're not one for censorship, but that's exactly what you seem to be advocating. I realize your comments were aimed at someone else and I'm certainly not attempting to speak for other people but... There is a difference between censorship and reasonable moderation. I don't think this video should be banned, if that were even possible, or that showing it will necessarily be the ultimate causitive factor in future shootings; however, it does not need to be run every fifteen minutes, on all 4 networks, multiple cable news channels, 24-7. There are shades of gray to how this story, and every story, will be reported and ought to be reported. Calls for this video to be shown in greater moderation are absolutely appropriate. You mentioned that you're not comfortable with NBC, or any major media company, making that decision for you. In fact, that type of decision is made every day, 100 times over, by every media company. The decision isn't to completely censor a particular video, story, viewpoint, picture, etc. but rather how much time to give it, where to place it in the show (first segment, dead last), how to comment on it, and, finally, how often it ought to be shown. Reasonable people may disagree on what that final clause means but certainly those positing that the video has been aired too much, too often, with too much prominence have a valid -- if debateable -- point. Should the video be aired? Absolutely. How often? That is up for debate. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Apr 20, 2007 13:42:38 GMT -5
I'm not comfortable with censorship either. I don't feel that the video has to be shown to the point of saturation either. I think it would have been more responsible for NBC to put an excerpt from the video on their website where people could decide whether they wanted to access it or not - then there would be no censorship and people could make the decision for themselves about whether they wanted to see it.
|
|
