NBC Explains Decision to Air Cho Material (Cancellation of appearances on "Today" show in protest)

TV WEEK ^ | April 19, 2007 | By Michele Greppi

[TN4Liberty]

The same group that was so upset that the networks stopped showing the planes crashing into the WTC towers are the same ones that are so upset that the press is finally releasing information.

I had exactly the same thought. I don't know where such a line would be drawn, and the media is in the business of drawing viewers. Clearly, this drew viewers, so it met that test. It was current, topical, and provided some information about a major news story. I don't know how one would decide NOT to air.

[justa-hairyape]

Got this bit of info from a UK story.

Family of Virginia Tech Killer Cho Seung-hui Were Concerned About His Brooding As a Boy
Published by Guardian Unlimited.

Yang-soon said. "But his mother told me he was too quiet. Soon after they got to America, he was diagnosed as being clinically withdrawn. It amazes me that he ever made it into university. I guess he must have had some mental problems from birth."

He was getting care soon after they arrived from America.

[justa-hairyape]

Oops. Time for me to crash. That should read ‘soon after they arrived from Korea’ or ‘soon after they arrived in America’. Later.

[fight_truth_decay]

I believe it was parents of victims. That in itself should have indicated the “sensitivity” of the issue. It was more important for ratings(last week it their rating for prime time programming was in the toilette!) and; therefore, “disclose” than it was about the “feelings” of the families. No purpose is served glorifying this act. We know what happened, we could if we wanted to, watch 24 hour coverage..the rantings of a madman will somehow educate me in what way?

Then we get into the 33 candles..I would have stomped on the 33rd! 32 deaths and the 33rd being the terrorist, Cho. Should we be lighting a candle for all terrorists killed?

Brian Williams plays off his “little boy” looks as does Michael J. Fox. Their images make all subject matter, otherwise disturbing, “proper” and “wholesome” and American as Apple Pie.

[ZULU]

Don’t insult Beavis and Butthead.

[fight_truth_decay]

"The BEST thing that could happen is to make it illegal to report these kinds of stories...."

That was a poster's comments on a blog I found. Yes, I agree, but it is the feeling of many Americans and others around the world who shared the scenes of this brutal mass murder via satellite.

Terror lives on terror. Terrorists live off other terrorists.

A law does not always serve and protect the welfare of it's people.

We have the Moral Man's Law which should guide our thinking into what actions we should take or not take.

[fight_truth_decay]

I’ll guarantee you I’m going to have my “greasy little fingers” all over it, because it’s *my* package. And if the authorities don’t like it — it’s just too bad, because it’s *my package* and not theirs..

When you know before hand that this package is from a "terrorist" as Cho "was". The it is the responsibility of the citizen to hand it over to authorities and not tamper with evidence that could be used, say in fact there might be an accomplice..there can be contamination of evidence. This package was not from some unknown source, it was from a person who had committed a terrible act(s).

It is our responsibility to others around us that this evidence be handed over forthcoming to assist in further investigations. A case is suddenly not closed because the media says, "The killer is dead."

You are withholding evidence and you can be taken to court yourself if the package was seen to be part of a crime. However, that causes valuable time to go by. Cho sent it to NBC as I would guess he KNEW THEY WOULD AIR IT. Other networks might have not been so quick to do so! ;) Therefore, NBC, becomes a personal outlet for terrorist acts...pretty much like some Arabic news outlets.

It is not about NADANADANADA, "it's mine and you can't have it "spoiled child" scenario"; it is about the welfare of others through professional law enforcement procedure. It's for your welfare as well, should Cho have survived with a highly paid defense team pointing at you, Star Traveler, suggesting you tampered with evidence because they came across your postings on FR and discovered bias on your part against Asian Americans, (for example, only).

[Star Traveler]

You said — “When you know before hand that this package is from a “terrorist” as Cho “was”. The it is the responsibility of the citizen to hand it over to authorities and not tamper with evidence that could be used, say in fact there might be an accomplice..there can be contamination of evidence. This package was not from some unknown source, it was from a person who had committed a terrible act(s).”

Unless the authorities are going to camp out at my mailbox and everyone else’s in town, they’re not going to even know what arrived until *I* tell them. And I’ll open it first to see what it is. From that point then *I* will make the decision what to do.

However, if some FBI agent wants to stand outside my door and watch me 24 hours a day, I guess he can do that. But, *still* he cannot look at what I’m receiving until I let him or I say so. Or, he can try and convince some court that he has some pressing need to examine every piece of mail that comes to me, before I get my hands on it — fat chance!

So, no matter what anyone says or does — until a court makes an order, no one gets it until I decide what to do with it. And that’s the only way it’s going to be, I’ll guarantee you.

As far as “knowing ahead of time” about what package is coming to me, I’ll gladly testify in court that whatever package arrives at my place I have *no idea* what it is — until — I open it and — until — I thoroughly examine it. And even then, I may *still* not know what it is. In fact, I may be totally mystified at what I got. It may take a while for me to even figure it out.

No one can get inside my mind, without me telling them what *I* knew... (and like I said, “I know nothing!” until I examine it, and then I *may recall* something about some guy on the news, but who knows..., I may not...).

You see..., no one can prevent me or anyone else from receiving mail, opening it up and examining it — first — before anyone else gets their hands on it — no matter what you or anyone else thinks...

.

You then said — It is our responsibility to others around us that this evidence be handed over forthcoming to assist in further investigations. A case is suddenly not closed because the media says, “The killer is dead.”

I’ll be the one who determine what my responsibilities are. And until such a time as I do, no one else will be telling me. And if the authorities think different, they can just scurry their little butts down to a judge and try to convince him. And if they do so (and presuming they can even get an order), then — at that time — I’ll look the order over and see what it says.

In the meantime, I’ll have my own mail...

There was one time that I was at work, in an office (a sort of public office, but it was also locked and not everyone could have admittance) — and I was the only one there at the time. All of a sudden about 20 FBI agents came through the front door (there’s a glass window to see out of the office), and they weren’t looking too friendly — had their special jackets on to identify them, had their guns and so on. So, they were definitely “out for bear” that day...

So, they came right up to the office door and said, “We have a search warrant to search the premises...” and I’m standing right in the doorway and wouldn’t budge, blocking their way in. They’re all looking very intently at me, about this time. So, I saw the piece of paper in his hand, as he sort of waved it. I said to him, “Let me see it.”

I kept standing there until I had examined it, looking for things like date, address, what things they were looking for, any special place on the premises, was it signed by a judge, and so on. It took me a couple of minutes (and I did feel a tad bit rushed, under the circumstances), but I wasn’t going to move out of the way until I had looked it over as thoroughly as I knew how to. So, when I had looked as much as I could, and it seemed as in order as I knew how to know about those things, I said, “Okay...” and stepped out of the way, and they all came in...

So, there’s no point in backing down on any of these issues, no matter what. I mean those guys had their hands on their guns and they were looking pretty mean at me, at the time. :-)

Fortunately, it wasn’t “my” office and I only worked there, and I didn’t have anything to do with what it was that they wanted. It had to do with the ownership and not any employees. I was only there (as an employee) to take care of the office when I was working and to secure it. That’s what I did.

.

You also said — “You are withholding evidence and you can be taken to court yourself if the package was seen to be part of a crime. However, that causes valuable time to go by. Cho sent it to NBC as I would guess he KNEW THEY WOULD AIR IT. Other networks might have not been so quick to do so! ;) Therefore, NBC, becomes a personal outlet for terrorist acts...pretty much like some Arabic news outlets.”

I can’t be withholding evidence until I’m knowledgeable that it is evidence and that there is a crime — and very simply — I’m not knowledgeable of that fact when my mail arrives. In fact, after I open it up, I’m still not sure I’m knowledgable of that fact. It may take me a while — if ever — to *become knowledgable* of that fact.

Good luck in court with that one...

But — as soon as I do become knowledgable of such a fact — then I’ll be able to consider what I determine my responsibilties are. And *I* will be the one who makes that decision.

.

And finally — “It is not about NADANADANADA, “it’s mine and you can’t have it “spoiled child” scenario”; it is about the welfare of others through professional law enforcement procedure. It’s for your welfare as well, should Cho have survived with a highly paid defense team pointing at you, Star Traveler, suggesting you tampered with evidence because they came across your postings on FR and discovered bias on your part against Asian Americans, (for example, only)”

Cho is not my relative, not my friend, not an acquaintance, I’ve never heard of him before, I’ve never seen him before, and I would have no idea what came in the mail.

I would examine it, because, first of all, it’s a right that no one takes away, under the Constitution and that’s the way it’s going to remain. If at some time, after the examination, I find out who Cho is, and then I determine that it’s something that the authorities should have for evidence, I can make inquiries at that time.

But, until I know something and until I have some knowledge and until I make an examination — nothing happens to my mail, other than me handling it.

And that’s going to never change, I’ll guarantee you, no matter what comes in the mail...

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

That was a poster's comments on a blog I found.

I knew that...yup, I did.
I was hoping, when I posted, that you'd realize that.

I had to respond to it because in my estimation, the BEST thing that could happen would be for this nation to return to a stricter interpretaion of the words written in The Constitution. Not legislate on-the-fly based on knee-jerk reactions to current events to make us all feel good.

[Dolphy]

It seems to me that you are getting a lot of issues confused. I am referring to a very narrow aspect, the video rantings of a mentally ill man.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “It seems to me that you are getting a lot of issues confused. I am referring to a very narrow aspect, the video rantings of a mentally ill man.”

And — likewise — I’m referring exactly to the “video rantings of a mentally ill man”, too. So, we’re talking about the exact same thing.

The *point* is (to bringing those other things into it, that I mentioned before) is that if one starts using what you’re saying as a *criteria* then it *will apply* to all those other 95% of the news.

What’s the criteria (which you’re currently applying to this “video rantings of a mentally ill man”)?

It’s precisely this — in your own words —

It’s that the “news” we get has to show an — “established need to know or any collective interest that would be threatened if it were not known”

Sorry, I won’t accept a criteria that someone else wants to impose on *my news* I’m going to get. No way! No one is going to sit there — sifting through my news before I get it and say — “is there an established need to know, here?” And no one is going to sit through my news before I get it and say, “are any collective interests threatened if this is not known”?

Nope, that’s “1984” all over again — in 2007. Sorry, that won’t fly with me...

And it won’t fly — either — with the “video rantings of a mentally ill man”.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[deebee1]

Its more the principle than this specific case. You seem to be in favor of the media deciding what’s important. For example, a story has recently broken about Dianne Feinstein’s corrupt activities regarding funnelling procurement dollars to her husband’s firm. yet I haven’t seen a word of this on the mainstream media. By allowing, even encouraging, the media to “censor” what we see if the VT case, we explicitly give them the right to “censor” stories such as the Feinstein matter as they see fit.

Just so you know where my sympathies lie, my wife is a VT grad (’91) and we in fact met at VT when I was visiting a good friend of mine who was working on his masters there. I agree, that this guy was a nut, but censorship is never the answer. If you don’t want to see it, turn the channel. I think that’s a better solution then giving the media carte blanche to decide what’s important (not that they don’t already).