"...in a small box to the bottom right-hand side..." by Danny del Mazo

Regarding the Virginia Tech Massacre, opinions differ over the media's handling of the killer's videotaped testimony. Comparable to the Iraq War issue, there are two sides to the argument and the truth is somewhere in between. If I had to offer my preference, I don't believe the footage should have been aired, and I'll give you my reasons shortly.

Bill O'Reilly, the 800-pound gorilla of cable news ratings, aired the killer's footage on his program The O'Reilly Factor and directly acknowledged the controversy. He said, and I'm paraphrasing of course, "This young man is Evil, and Evil must be exposed." According to O'Reilly, the benefits of airing this footage greatly outweigh the dangers, for it will stir others, including congressmen and other elected officials, to their own capacity for stronger precautions. Although I admire him for explaining his argument thoroughly, I ultimately have to disagree. First of all, the young man was a homicidal psychopath, of that there can be no question. But for the sake of pragmatism, I don't think it's necessary to elevate his actions to the mythic plateau of "Evil". It goes back to the concept of the "War on Terror": an ideological word used to create a symbol of threat, rather than accurately convey the details. Secondly, and this is solely in my view, I do believe that the cons outweigh the pros.

No matter how tightly precautionary measures are enforced, dangerous people will always have the means to hurt people, it's inevitable. Therefore, broadcasting this footage will only encourage other estranged youths, who crave the publicity that this Virginia Tech student did, to put their ambitions into practice. Clearly, stricter provisions need to be adapted, but there is a lack of faith in the American public: the idea that they must be spoon fed the material and be privy to every gory detail in order to take action.

Although nearly impossible in the sensational world of broadcast media, I believe the best prevention tool is communication, but of a different sort. Rather than exploit disturbing footage, the media should devote more time to moral analysis and the humanitarian side of the story. Why did this young man do this? How can atrocities of this magnitude be prevented in the future? If only the news would attempt to educate people, instead of entertain them with harsh images, then a considerable amount of progress could be made in discouraging others from committing these violent acts, encourage greater precautions and honor the memories of those innocent lives that were lost.

(An interesting note: A few days ago, I picked up a newspaper with about fifty percent of the front page devoted to the Virginia Tech Killer, who killed about 33 people. However, in a small box to the bottom right-hand side, it was reported that about 200 people were killed in Iraq that day. In my view, this beautifully supplements the main points of your lecture about sensationalist media and how they prioritize stories.)

by Danny del Mazo
California, April 22/2007