Thursday, April 19, 2007

Thanks, NBC

So as the controversy regarding NBC showing the clips and pictures sent in by the Virginia Tech shooter continues to heat up faster than a born-again Christian at an abortion clinic, we are forced to ponder the following: What effect does showing these things really have? NBC has stated that it has helped answer the question as to why this act took place, and what was really happening inside the mind of young Cho Sueng-Hui. So that’s the reason? Like we didn’t know already he was a little crazy?Lets, just for a second, be honest. It was about one thing: ratings. That’s it. The FBI had asked that it not be aired, and if you really cared about the reasons behind the massacre, you would have complied. If your reason was anything other than ratings, why did you not share your little videos with your competing networks? I am sure Ms. Couric would have had no trouble airing them at all. Instead, CBS led Wednesday nights broadcast with the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, not that anyone watched anyway. You can certainly count your lucky stars that this nutjob decided to send you this little “package”, and while you were certainly free to use it as you wish, lets not pretend you give a damn about anything other that the Nielsons. All you did was give a bunch of grieving families a little more stress and agony, and delay their grieving process even further. Does anyone feel better after seeing this? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? What was so wrong with waiting a while before pounding this killers ugly face down our throats? Even so, after seeing this, what do we gain? Just this: The knowledge that there is no way at all to stop this from happening again. This boy had the attention of the legal system, had teachers recommending assistance, spent time with a psychiatrist, and showed, in writing through his scripts, his innermost thoughts. So all these clues were out there, but with no way to connect them, the puzzle was never complete enough to act apon. Haven’t we heard this before? The worst terrorist attact in our nations history could have been avoided if there had not been such an inability or unwillingness to share information between agencies. If a teacher goes to school authorities with a concern for a student, shouldn’t their investigation involve questioning other teachers as well? Or maybe even check with his roommates and classmates? Should a psychiatrist, concerned enough to realize suicidal tendencies, take at least a few minutes to check the opinions of others that know the individual? How many times can the buck be passed? While we cannot imply that this was the fault of anyone other than the shooter, certainly if we are charged with the responsibility with deciding the mental stability of a patient, or with the well-being of a student body, should that not involve a little more than checking a box on a medical form? A judge actually ordered outpatient mental health treatment for Mr. Sueng-Hui. Enforced by whom? We allow an obviously troubled individual back on the street, with no one responsible at all for the repercussions. If a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medication for a patient, causing perhaps one’s death, would they be responsible? Of course. But what if they prescribed no medication or treatment when it was needed? Are they now without blame? As long as there is a system, there will be cracks in the system. There will always be another Cho Sueng-Hui to fall between them. So, thanks NBC, for telling us what we already knew. I just could have waited a few days for the reminder.

2 comments:

Chick said...

The American relationship to media is nothing short of pornographic; we've manipulated our desire for information to be less a hobby and more a basic need in order to be satiated. We move reality into a safe two-dimensional screen where lives become commodities, a change that makes pain and joy accessible to both the viewer and the viewed.

But behind this bitter-tasting shift is a true ethical battle within the media circuit: is there a limit to our right to information ? It's very easy to dismiss this argument by casting aside all those in the media as evil ratings-hungry fear-mongers, but the easy way out is rarely the most sound path, perhaps never more so than in this case.

It's a myth that media outlets are inconsiderate of the moral effects of their decisions: we are the consumer, and we control the ratings, and if we are offended, they will die. But which is more offensive: to be presented with the offending material, or the be treated as children to be protected from a truth that often times takes far too long to unravel?

Take the current case of the nuclear leak and fire as a result of a massive earthquake in Japan: reports of the nuclear dangers were delayed for hours, putting many people into potential danger that could have been avoided if the report had been put out as soon as the information had come in. Where information can be the key to fear, it can also be the key to protecting ourselves.

We cannot always accept information through a third party filter; sometimes, the most important insight into how to protect ourselves must come through the painful means of seeing the world through the eyes of a killer. What can be gained through getting as close to danger as possible?

Everything.

hjtello@mtholyoke.edu

Abbeeroad said...

Any time a civilization endures a painful experience its citizens commence the finger pointing. Why is there this immediate need to place blame? Psychologists would say that these events place the security of the self in danger, and the brain must rectify such mental discomfort by placing blame and seeing the source of blame punished. Only then, can the blissful state of mind be returned. But who is to say that it is beneficial to return to this blissful state of mind? Society has already proven itself incompetent in helping those who ultimately take blame. Perhaps the entire practice of trying to return people to a so-called blissful state of mind is flawed.

The media encourages this return to a blissful state under the guise of bringing citizens the truth (at all costs, no less). The thoughts of a killer, his most intimate secrets, does nothing more than reinforce the blame being placed on him. They show the world the bad guy so that individuals feel secure that they are not the bad guy, when in fact a little self reflection is in order.

An image of the entire world doped up on pain killers pops into mind when considering a nation in a blissful state. Basically, by placing blame and rectifying mental or emotional discomfort, society is doping its citizens in the same way that a doctor dopes a patient. The media helps by showing who is responsible and why, helping that mental discomfort resolve itself, when in fact the problem is as glaring as ever. The fact that these destructive events arise in the first place are clues to deeper wounds in the nation, society, and in human beings themselves.

Perhaps what is needed instead is to live with the discomfort for a while: face it. If individuals accept and understand that these things will happen as a consequence of everything in society today, they would not be so quick to place blame. They may not be happy with what they realize, and it may catalyze significant change. Such change is not possible, however, as long as people allow themselves to be doped by the media and themselves and believe everything’s ok.