ABC News — scooped by its rival NBC, which itself is playing the ultimate media whore by celebrating a mass murderer’s public tantrum — reports an interview with a psychiatrist who says, quite credibly, that showing Cho Seung-Hui’s video is a “social catastrophe”:
“If anybody cares about the victims in Blacksburg and if anybody cares about their children, stop showing this video now. Take it off the Internet. Let it be relegated to YouTube,” Welner said. “This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe.”
(Fedora tip to Mrs. Likelihood.) The blood of the victims of the “next one” is on the hands of everyone in the decision-making chain at NBC for this utterly inexcusable decision. But this is merely Son of Frankenstein, for it was the 1995 publication by the New York Times and Washington Post of the Unabomber’s nutty, blood-soaked “manifesto” that established the recent precedent of media outlets providing the most highly-sought-after reward in today’s world — fame, and a “platform” for grievances — to killers.
The Times and the Post could argue, though not convincingly, that they at least sought to assuage a killer who was still on the loose. That argument was absurd because there was no quid pro quo nor any way to enforce a “deal,” and the calculus contained no factor for the “next one,” whose incentives would now be twisted in a new way due to the media’s compliance with such demands.
Still NBC’s decision is far worse, not only because no such rationale is available, but because the Times and Post circulations were unlikely to increase meaningfully as a result of printing the neurotic “manifesto” that no one could read past the first paragraph. In contrast, the NBC move is striking in its venality. Because of the traffic that this video will get — with that cute little NBC peacock in the upper corner, it doesn’t matter if it’s on YouTube or anywhere else — NBC is simply making an ice cold, murderous money decision.
Cho was the “next one.” But, no thanks to NBC, not the last.
UPDATE: Kaus says the same thing (but doesn’t link to the videos!); now it appears that this view, though far from unanimous (see the comments below), represents a majority of public opinion. Oh, well.













