18 April 2007
On Virginia, and blame
Longtime Cicero Jones reader, frequent comment, and sometimes contributor Chosun has been kind enough to provide us with some thoughts on the tragic crimes against humanity committed on the Virginia Tech campus. As a Korean-American (like the killer), Chosun offers a unique perspective.
From Chosun:
We’ve all heard about the killings in Virginia Tech by now, which is undoubtedly a horrible and horrific incident. Interestingly enough, Cicero sent me an article which had a comment that I found to be very disturbing. The subheading states, “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history” and has a picture of the first victim of the shooting—eighteen-year-old Emily Jane Hilscher. Disgusted by this subheading, I immediately posted a comment about how ridiculous and thoughtless this subtitle is. Apparently, I wasn’t alone in feeling this way—there are currently 379 comments slamming the article for this as well.
Oddly enough, only about 10 minutes before reading this article, I had been contacted by a Korean friend of mine (I am Korean) in NYC who warned me that a Korean Association in NYC had been contacted by the Korean Consulate’s office warning that Koreans (and Asians in general) should be careful in case of retaliations. I took it as a big joke and nothing to worry about, and Cicero and I even joked about how stupid people would have to be to try to “retaliate” against Koreans. It was right around this point when Cicero said something that made me consider this a little more seriously—he said something like, “wait until Fox News has a headline like, ‘South Korea: the source of the crazed gunman.’” I’m wondering if a headline like this would cause retaliations from people (especially in VA) against Koreans. Likewise, is it possible that Emily Jane Hilscher’s family will suffer from attacks from the families of the other victims/friends as a result of this article?
These thoughts have made me want to pose a question to my fellow Cicero Jones readers: What safeguards are there that some media outlets wouldn’t be so attention-starved and/or careless to say something completely ridiculous as “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history”? Should journalists, reporters, and/or companies be held personally liable for crimes committed as a result of careless/sensational reporting tactics?
On a side note, two plays written by Cho Seung Hui can be found here and here. They show how disturbed he actually was.
From Chosun:
We’ve all heard about the killings in Virginia Tech by now, which is undoubtedly a horrible and horrific incident. Interestingly enough, Cicero sent me an article which had a comment that I found to be very disturbing. The subheading states, “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history” and has a picture of the first victim of the shooting—eighteen-year-old Emily Jane Hilscher. Disgusted by this subheading, I immediately posted a comment about how ridiculous and thoughtless this subtitle is. Apparently, I wasn’t alone in feeling this way—there are currently 379 comments slamming the article for this as well.
Oddly enough, only about 10 minutes before reading this article, I had been contacted by a Korean friend of mine (I am Korean) in NYC who warned me that a Korean Association in NYC had been contacted by the Korean Consulate’s office warning that Koreans (and Asians in general) should be careful in case of retaliations. I took it as a big joke and nothing to worry about, and Cicero and I even joked about how stupid people would have to be to try to “retaliate” against Koreans. It was right around this point when Cicero said something that made me consider this a little more seriously—he said something like, “wait until Fox News has a headline like, ‘South Korea: the source of the crazed gunman.’” I’m wondering if a headline like this would cause retaliations from people (especially in VA) against Koreans. Likewise, is it possible that Emily Jane Hilscher’s family will suffer from attacks from the families of the other victims/friends as a result of this article?
These thoughts have made me want to pose a question to my fellow Cicero Jones readers: What safeguards are there that some media outlets wouldn’t be so attention-starved and/or careless to say something completely ridiculous as “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history”? Should journalists, reporters, and/or companies be held personally liable for crimes committed as a result of careless/sensational reporting tactics?
On a side note, two plays written by Cho Seung Hui can be found here and here. They show how disturbed he actually was.
Labels: blame, virginia, what's next from fox
¶ 8:51 AM
Comments:
<< Home
if don imus can get fired for exercising his right to free speech(regardless of how awful his comment was), then YES, the media should also be held responsible for careless and possibly wreckless comments. in fact, let's just police everything that everyone says all the time. where is the line?
# posted by 
: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:23:00 PM
: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:23:00 PM
While I agree with you in concept, I think that's a pretty big gap to jump. I'm sure you would agree that someone lying or twisting truths which result in the assault or murder of another person should be held at least partially responsible.
Ultimately, Don Imus' firing wasn't government-imposed censorship, but a choice based on the owners of the parent company that they didn't want him to be a representative of their company. On the flip-side, Clear Channel and Hot97 had no problems with the Tsunami Song that Miss Jones and her crew recorded, and I feel that this incident was FAR worse than what Don Imus said. Therefore, company imposed censorship doesn't really concern me--that is up to the company. If Don Imus was arrested and thrown in jail, then I would say that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
I completely agree that censorship isn't the answer--however I also think that people should be held responsible for the things they say...especially if their words have a direct affect on crimes being committed against others.
Ultimately, Don Imus' firing wasn't government-imposed censorship, but a choice based on the owners of the parent company that they didn't want him to be a representative of their company. On the flip-side, Clear Channel and Hot97 had no problems with the Tsunami Song that Miss Jones and her crew recorded, and I feel that this incident was FAR worse than what Don Imus said. Therefore, company imposed censorship doesn't really concern me--that is up to the company. If Don Imus was arrested and thrown in jail, then I would say that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
I completely agree that censorship isn't the answer--however I also think that people should be held responsible for the things they say...especially if their words have a direct affect on crimes being committed against others.
# posted by : Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:49:00 PM
: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:49:00 PM
The thing that is important to remember with all of this is "free speech" and "censorship" are both illusions behind which corporate media hide.
News organizations are not in business because they believe in the First Amendment, or because they believe the public needs to know the truth. No, they're in business because they believe they can make a profit, and the pressure to do so is continually increasing as competition increases.
Events like the Virginia Tech killings are, like it or not, good business for them. The bottom line is that their ratings increase DRAMATICALLY during times of crisis. The Don Imus "scandal" is much the same thing. Though he's an idiot and I'm glad he's off the air, I don't believe for a second that the decisions to fire him were made on grounds of ethics. Instead, he had become a net drag on the profitability of the respective corporations. Advertising is the lifeblood of media money and losing advertisers (who themselves pull out because they do not want their brands to have negative connotations) is a deathblow for any media enterprise.
News organizations are not in business because they believe in the First Amendment, or because they believe the public needs to know the truth. No, they're in business because they believe they can make a profit, and the pressure to do so is continually increasing as competition increases.
Events like the Virginia Tech killings are, like it or not, good business for them. The bottom line is that their ratings increase DRAMATICALLY during times of crisis. The Don Imus "scandal" is much the same thing. Though he's an idiot and I'm glad he's off the air, I don't believe for a second that the decisions to fire him were made on grounds of ethics. Instead, he had become a net drag on the profitability of the respective corporations. Advertising is the lifeblood of media money and losing advertisers (who themselves pull out because they do not want their brands to have negative connotations) is a deathblow for any media enterprise.
Whoever wrote that headline is an unconscious, tasteless, amateur, who should be fired directly. Otherwise the publication stands in my eyes, as a true tabloid, riddled with horrific bullshit laden content, speaking to an uneducated, naive popuation of sleepwalkers.
Post a Comment
# posted by : Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:58:00 PM
: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:58:00 PM<< Home
