Slate's Bizbox
press box: Media criticism.

The Cho ShowThe networks cancel his videos after one hot ratings period.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 7:03 PM ET

Fox News Channel Senior Vice President John Moody distributed a memo to his staff this morning announcing the network's decision to "severely restrict" its use of the media package Cho Seung-Hui sent to NBC News.

"We see no reason to continue assaulting the public with these disturbing and demented images," Moody wrote.

Seeing as Fox had been running continuous loops of Cho's horror show ever since NBC News first broadcast it, the network was just a tad late in locating the public's sensitivities to disturbing and demented images. Moody's grandstanding reminded me of the scene from L.A. Confidential where the LAPD captain confronts the corrupt detective: "Don't start trying to do the right thing, boyo. You haven't had the practice."

But Fox wasn't alone in its belated discovery that too much Cho could be too much Cho. NBC News dittoed Fox in this release: "Beginning this morning, we have limited our usage of the video across NBC News, including MSNBC, to no more than 10 percent of our airtime." CBS News and ABC News—which would have also churned the Cho videos and pictures into a fine multimedia pulp if they had cable outlets—offered similar communiqués.

What caused TV news to suddenly retreat in search of higher moral ground?

NBC News needn't apologize to anybody for originally airing the Cho videos and pictures. The Virginia Tech slaughter is an ugly story, but the five W's of journalism—who, what, where, when, and why—demand that journalists ask the question "why?" even if they can't adequately answer it. If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts. If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes.

The real story here is the odd restraint NBC News showed. Cho mailed NBC News about two dozen QuickTime videos, of which the network has aired only a handful. NBC anchor Brian Williams said last night that the network is also holding back Cho photos, as well as Cho writings it deems incoherent and obscene. It seems to think that it's protecting viewers by rationing Cho material while at the same time it reruns the already released video indiscriminately. (I wonder if Fox News would be so circumspect if it were sitting on a stockpile of fresh Cho. Actually, I don't really wonder.)

I suspect the networks stopped the Cho reruns in an effort to pre-empt criticisms that they are 1) needlessly upsetting people and 2) inspiring potential copycat killers. As a practical matter, I'll bet they were having a hard time getting the families of the murdered to talk to them as long as The Cho Show was running.

The Cho affair reveals once again how dependent cable news is on video wallpaper. Whenever a major story arrives, the cable news networks are forced to loop the most arresting images, even if they're days or a week old, to give correspondents and sources an animated backdrop against which to talk. If the story is 9/11, the wallpaper is looped tape of the crash. If the story is the New Orleans catastrophe, it's folks wading in chest-high water or looting stores. If the story is the space shuttle Columbia, it's the death ship streaking its path across the sky like fireworks again and again.

Cable news reruns are usually defensible because nobody but invalids—and perhaps TVNewser—watches the stations around the clock. Viewers dip in for five minutes here, 15 or 30 minutes there, and then flit away. Few notice how much recycling goes on.

When a major story like Virginia Tech breaks, viewers linger, wanting to know more. There's nothing wrong with that expectation. But having committed to going wall-to-wall with the Cho murders, the networks are too cowardly to tell viewers that only 30 minutes of essential Cho story exists, and that viewers should feel free to turn their sets off after they watch that much. Instead, the networks added soy extender and sawdust to inflate 30 minutes of solid news into a six- or seven-hour marathon.

There's a path around this quandary. In his book The Language of New Media, scholar Allen Bells reports how the BBC responded in 1930 when it was confronted with a "shortage of news deemed worthy to broadcast." The Beeb didn't dress up yesterday's broadcast with new comments from another expert. Instead, the announcer would admit, "There is no news tonight."

If only today's broadcasters were as honest.

******

There is no more Press Box tonight. However, piles of fascinating and informative reader e-mails accumulate at . (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

We cannot exercise our duty of enlightened self-government if we do not have all of the available facts. Who can say where frank knowledge of Cho's behavior will lead? Improvements in profiling? Improvements in gun-related background checks? Improvements in college administration? Improvements in computer forensics?

And who can say which of us will make some groundbreaking connection based on this knowledge?

The police I've heard commenting all say "this should have been left to law enforcement alone." The mental health professionals I've heard commenting all say "this should have been left to mental health professionals alone."

This kind of elitism is better suited to authoritarian states than to a republic. This nation was founded by men who fervently believed that government had no power to decide what it was good for the people to know. […] If this isn't for you, if you never want to see it or if it has looped too many times for you, by all means, turn it off. It's your choice.

And choice is one of the core issues at stake here. Were I forced to choose between having to turn off to stop seeing, or having no choice to turn on to see, I should not hesitate to choose the former.

--RonB52

(To reply, click here.)

There is a cultural phenomenon that is building around these mass killings at schools and worksites, by disturbed individuals that have very diffuse and seemingly all-encompassing grievances at the world around them. With these video clips and images, the gunman isn't merely trying to portray himself as a powerful individual who overcame the insensitivity and hypocrisy of the world through a vengeful show of force.

Rather, the main thing he's trying to do is get recruits to his cause. I don't want to quote him directly, but he makes some references to the example of the Columbine killers, and his desire to inspire others to follow in his path. He killed as many people as he could in his rampage, and he wants others to pick up where he left off.

Certainly, the deed itself implicitly sends that message, but these images send that message much more directly and dramatically. These images take the cultural phenomenon of these shootings to a whole new level, as they were intended to. I have no doubt that there are and will be troubled individuals who will view these images, identify with them, and take their message to heart.

Under other circumstances, I could tolerate these kinds of images. But with the message they are meant to convey, I hate these images on every newspaper front page and every internet site, with the NBC news logo stamped on the corner as if they were a commodity that they needed to protect their ownership of. That logo stamp brands NBC as irresponsible, and complicit in the broader purpose of the gunman's deed, to directly connect with and inspire other troubled souls to follow in his wake.

--Steve-R

(To reply, click here.)

Almost all the MSM writers addressing this issue have said that NBC acted correctly. What else are they going to say? This stuff is their bread and butter. A story like this comes along once in a...well, this is America, so it's once every few years.

I guess I don't understand the argument, though. If there is one. "The media needs to answer the question why." Fair enough. Did this pornographic spectacle answer that? No. Unless the answer is simply "the guy was a paranoid sociopath." That's something we could have guessed fairly accurately without the freakshow.

The other rationale seems to be that "the public wants to know." The public does not want to know. The public wants to Watch: The antithesis of knowing. Thanks for feeding our prurience, and for not answering any of the harder questions.

--niallD

(To reply, click here.)

(4/23)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.