More people have died in Iraq on both sides than at VT since the story broke, but that's old news, apparently. And AG Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Didn't hear much about that.
Gonzales' testimony was postponed till today
my wife brought up the same point about iraq with her students last night don't think they could relate fly back on the plane next to an army scout who has done two fifteen month tours of iraq opened my eyes to a different view of what is up over there
And local news outlets are desperately hoping this story has legs. Why? 4/26???5/23 = Nielsen Local Sweeps.
Oh, I wouldnt worried about it. Even if VT falls off the front page, there'll surely be some other scandal to cycle through. Maybe Don Imus will be revealed as the real father of Anna Nicole Smith's daughter.
I dont know if you can blame the media for catering to what people want to see. Everybody knows the news stations are for-profit companies, so its strange to me that NBC has to keep prefacing the dude's video by saying either a) "NBC turned this video over to authorities immediately after receiving it"; or b) 'we will only be showing a small portion of the video in respect of the victims and their families'. If people are so offended by all the coverage this dude is getting, they can change the channel (or turn on their computers, open a book, etc.). Obviously this type of news is more appealing to the general public than....basically anything else that is going on in the world. Shit, look at how many pages soulstrut has devoted to it.
That's certainly true to a degree, but isn't there some sort of responsibility on the part of news outlets to balance the coverage of this story with coverage of the other important things going on in the world right now? More people have died in Iraq on both sides than at VT since the story broke, but that's old news, apparently. And AG Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Didn't hear much about that.
I'm not placing all of the blame at the feet of the various news media, but if the media simply gave the majority exactly what they wanted all the time, your local newspaper would lead with the comics section, followed by a huge sports section, with local and world news buried among the ads. What ever happened to the idea of the media as the fourth estate - a watchdog over the actions of the government and private corporations alike?
I chose not to follow the shootings very closely and have learned enough of what I wanted to learn about them. I listened to the Gonzalez hearings this mornign on NPR who was doing a live feed (and still may be). Its not hard to find other news or remove yourself from the barrage of stories about VT. hell just go outside, go to the gym, work, read, anything. The only reason this is big to alot of you is that you are interested in it. Carry on.
The saying used be that the role of the journalist is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." I just don't see that happening here.
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarranted, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzalez hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarrented, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzalez hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
I'm not begrudging the front-page coverage - it's warranted. It's the 24-hour focus on CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. that bothers me. And no, we certainly haven't reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time," but the drop in standards of journalistic integrity in all media has been unrelenting over the last couple of decades. There are hold-outs, like the NY Times, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Tabloid journalism, celebrity non-news, and violence of all stripes have replaced hard news as the main focus of most news organizations.
And Gonzales testified this morning. Check out the CNN front page for an example of what I'm talking about. You'll notice the Gonzales item on the right. After you finish looking at the picture of Cho with a gun.
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarranted, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzales hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
Drew,
So what if it's the "worst shooting rampage in U.S. history"? If Cho hadn't "won" the award for the title, does that mean the story should NOT have generated a week's worth of front page coverage?
This was a tragedy - but so are all senseless murders. I'm willing to straight up admit that the numbers game DOES make a difference b/c it adds to the sensationalism of the situation but that only speaks to how it looms as spectacle rather than whether it's truly newsworthy or not. In other words, I'll acknowledge that I'm complicit enough to consume the news that's out there...but I hardly think that's a pure justification for sensationalizing this in the way that the media - quite predictably - has. If CNN chose to focus on other stories, I wouldn't feel cheated by them exercising more editorial restraint.
In my opinion the media repeatedly airing this psycho's videos & photos is incredibly irresponsible & reckless - and I would go so far as to say that if there is a high school massacre next week by some copycat teenagers, the blood of innocents will be on the hands of network execs.
Again - by releasing this material to the public, and repeatedly showing it, analyzing it & making it available, the killer has won. He gets exactly what he wanted, and it makes me sick.
In my opinion the media repeatedly airing this psycho's videos & photos is incredibly irresponsible & reckless - and I would go so far as to say that if there is a high school massacre next week by some copycat teenagers, the blood of innocents will be on the hands of network execs.
Again - by releasing this material to the public, and repeatedly showing it, analyzing it & making it available, the killer has won. He gets exactly what he wanted, and it makes me sick.
the drop in standards of journalistic integrity in all media has been unrelenting over the last couple of decades.
My personal "favorite" single event relating to this was earlier this decade when five shark attacks occurred, and it was blown into an epidemic the entire summer. SHARKS - IS YOUR CHILD NEXT?!
In my opinion the media repeatedly airing this psycho's videos & photos is incredibly irresponsible & reckless - and I would go so far as to say that if there is a high school massacre next week by some copycat teenagers, the blood of innocents will be on the hands of network execs.
Again - by releasing this material to the public, and repeatedly showing it, analyzing it & making it available, the killer has won. He gets exactly what he wanted, and it makes me sick.
couldnt agree more, but the media has created this monster for many years even b4 columbine... dont worry though, soon we will have a made for tv movie depicting this bs as well...
Yeah, no doubt. No good tragedy goes unexploited.
A small note - I'm not sure what it means that "the killer has won." I think the killer "won" - in his own mind - when he started slaughtering people. Whether his message ever gets out or not isn't immaterial to that, but the only meaningful column here isn't "wins" but "losses." What the media does at this point doesn't contribute to the killer's "victory". It's indicative of media's failings. Cho simply provided the catalyst.
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarrented, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzalez hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
I'm not begrudging the front-page coverage - it's warranted. It's the 24-hour focus on CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. that bothers me. And no, we certainly haven't reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time," but the drop in standards of journalistic integrity in all media has been unrelenting over the last couple of decades. There are hold-outs, like the NY Times, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Tabloid journalism, celebrity non-news, and violence of all stripes have replaced hard news as the main focus of most news organizations.
And Gonzales testified this morning. Check out the CNN front page for an example of what I'm talking about. You'll notice the Gonzales item on the right. After you finish looking at the picture of Cho with a gun.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The V-Tech tragedy where 30+ people were murdered or Gonzales apologizing for the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys?
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarranted, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzales hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
Drew,
So what if it's the "worst shooting rampage in U.S. history"? If Cho hadn't "won" the award for the title, does that mean the story should NOT have generated a week's worth of front page coverage?
This was a tragedy - but so are all senseless murders. I'm willing to straight up admit that the numbers game DOES make a difference b/c it adds to the sensationalism of the situation but that only speaks to how it looms as spectacle rather than whether it's truly newsworthy or not. In other words, I'll acknowledge that I'm complicit enough to consume the news that's out there...but I hardly think that's a pure justification for sensationalizing this in the way that the media - quite predictably - has. If CNN chose to focus on other stories, I wouldn't feel cheated by them exercising more editorial restraint.
This story, by definition is as sensational as it gets, regardless of what the news media does with it after the fact. We're not talking about Imus here, which was a very clear example of the media making a story into more than what it really should have been.
This was the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. A week's worth of front page coverage is not unwarrented, especially with new developments that add context to the tragedy. We have not reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time".
And to my knowledge, the Gonzalez hearings were postponed because of what happened and begin today.
I'm not begrudging the front-page coverage - it's warranted. It's the 24-hour focus on CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. that bothers me. And no, we certainly haven't reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time," but the drop in standards of journalistic integrity in all media has been unrelenting over the last couple of decades. There are hold-outs, like the NY Times, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Tabloid journalism, celebrity non-news, and violence of all stripes have replaced hard news as the main focus of most news organizations.
And Gonzales testified this morning. Check out the CNN front page for an example of what I'm talking about. You'll notice the Gonzales item on the right. After you finish looking at the picture of Cho with a gun.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The V-Tech tragedy where 30+ people were murdered or Gonzales apologizing for the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys?
At bottom, the Gonzales story is about whether or not the current administration has the right to fire US attorneys at will, which affects the manner in which federal law is applied throughout the country. So, I would say the Gonzales story has a greater impact on the day-to-day life of every citizen in this country.
For example, in the early '60s, before the Civil Rights movement had hit critical mass, non-violent protestors could not rely on the Justice Department for protection, because the attorneys were simply unwilling to enforce the laws that were already on the books. People were beaten and killed, and their basic rights ignored because the US attorneys, and, to be honest, Bobby Kennedy, were unwilling to go toe-to-toe with states such as Mississippi and Alabama.
That's the impact that the conduct of US attorneys and the Justice Department can have, and that's what's at stake here. Whether the the current administration at any given time can fill the rolls with attorneys who will enforce or disregard standing federal law according to the whims of the chief executive.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The V-Tech tragedy where 30+ people were murdered or Gonzales apologizing for the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys?
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The murder of 30+ people in Virginia? Or the massacre of 200+ people in Iraq? Or Don Imus getting fired? Or...
This is not an argument you can win easily - you want to create a quantification for news-worthiness, when really, those judgments depend on subjective decisions that should abide by more than a numbers game.
80 people die in Oakland last year...and that was only up to July. That almost never merits even LOCAL news coverage. I'm not discounting the VT tragedy but it qualifies as a national tragedy less b/c it really is and more because the spectacle of it has become national.
I actually agree that the tape should be publicized--just not as much. With ongoing 24 hour coverage, that is the type of sensationalistic "martyrization that gives this disturbed little boy exactly what he wanted.
There have been interviews with victim's that have said that they were glad to see the video because they now understood that this kid was mentally disturbed and no longer had to ask "why" he did what he did. The constant coverage is what gets me.
I also hate to draw the same issues that have been raised already, but how many murders are there in Richmond, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, New Orleans each year? We should be focusing practical efforts to solve that type of ongoing massacre as well as address this partially media induced sensationalism.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The V-Tech tragedy where 30+ people were murdered or Gonzales apologizing for the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys?
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The murder of 30+ people in Virginia? Or the massacre of 200+ people in Iraq? Or Don Imus getting fired? Or...
This is not an argument you can win easily - you want to create a quantification for news-worthiness, when really, those judgments depend on subjective decisions that should abide by more than a numbers game.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
someone want to try to explain what he is talking about in this video? I have not been following the story...
did dude have any identifiable grievances? he was talking about how people drink cognac and "could have had it all"...I am way confused by this video. any insight?
someone want to try to explain what he is talking about in this video? I have not been following the story...
did dude have any identifiable grievances? he was talking about how people drink cognac and "could have had it all"...I am way confused by this video. any insight?
I work with mentally ill people. Sometimes they're crazy and sometimes they're not. This guy was crazy when he did what he did and therefore had crazy rationalizations. There's no point in attempting to apply some logic rubric to this kid because he was a bonified whackjob--and that's my professional opinion. Sad but true.
Don't argue with intoxicated or crazy people because they make they're own rules that make no sense.
someone want to try to explain what he is talking about in this video? I have not been following the story...
did dude have any identifiable grievances? he was talking about how people drink cognac and "could have had it all"...I am way confused by this video. any insight?
I work with mentally ill people. Sometimes they're crazy and sometimes they're not. This guy was crazy when he did what he did and therefore had crazy rationalizations. There's no point in attempting to apply some logic rubric to this kid because he was a bonified whackjob--and that's my professional opinion. Sad but true.
Don't argue with intoxicated or crazy people because they make they're own rules that make no sense.
yeah I understand he was crazy. I am just looking for some grievance, however vague. for instance in a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18186053/]his little press kit he seems to make some references to Bush, 9/11, etc. just wondering if there are any theories re: motive. I have not really been following this story.
someone want to try to explain what he is talking about in this video? I have not been following the story...
did dude have any identifiable grievances? he was talking about how people drink cognac and "could have had it all"...I am way confused by this video. any insight?
I work with mentally ill people. Sometimes they're crazy and sometimes they're not. This guy was crazy when he did what he did and therefore had crazy rationalizations. There's no point in attempting to apply some logic rubric to this kid because he was a bonified whackjob--and that's my professional opinion. Sad but true.
Don't argue with intoxicated or crazy people because they make they're own rules that make no sense.
yeah I understand he was crazy. I am just looking for some grievance, however vague. for instance in a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18186053/]his little press kit he seems to make some references to Bush, 9/11, etc. just wondering if there are any theories re: motive. I have not really been following this story.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that looking for logic in his grievances and motives is like trying to see a clear image of the world while being submerged in a the ocean and trying to look up at the world--mad hazy, distorted, and always changing. He may say "rich people" and "brats" and "9-11" and "Bush" but that means a whole different thing to you than it does to him. That's all.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
I'm a little confused. That seems kind of chicken and egg to me. How does one determine "impact" in this case?
I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said, but yesterday at my job when I arrived, some guy in the parking lot was listening to some morning talk radio show in his car. I overheard one of the incredibly ditsy sounding female hosts saying something to the effect of "He he...like...now I get worried whenever I walk by an Asian kid. I'm even now scared of our office's computer repair guy!". What a fucking cunt.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
I'm a little confused. That seems kind of chicken and egg to me. How does one determine "impact" in this case?
Primarily the millions of parents with children in college, who for all they know, could have a roomate with some of these character traits. That's another reason, to me, why showing (a limited) amount of the material and calling on experts to analyze it is so important right now.
I can respect what you're saying but your argument, to me, suggests that parental concerns are just a product of sensationalism. College campuses, are, by far, a safer environment than being off-campus. If parents are worried about people who might do harm to their kids, they should be focused on drunk drivers. Or predatory credit card companies. Cho is an extraordinary, exceptional, isolated case. That doesn't mean, as a society, we can't do more to prevent shit like this...but nothing that's happening right now is really designed to "ally fears." They're merely fueling them.
It's the same mentality that powers "To Catch a Predator" when the vast, vast majority of molesters aren't strangers off the innanet but family members.
There's no "real" concern here, just fear fed by endless sensationalism.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
I'm a little confused. That seems kind of chicken and egg to me. How does one determine "impact" in this case?
Primarily the millions of parents with children in college, who for all they know, could have a roomate with some of these character traits. That's another reason to me why showing (a limited) amount of the material and calling on experts to analyze it is so important right now.
yeah I understand he was crazy. I am just looking for some grievance, however vague
between the contents of his "plays", and references to john mark kerr (jean benet ramsey) and debra lafave (teacher on student related), i'd say with some certainty the dude was probably sexually abused at some point.
I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said, but yesterday at my job when I arrived, some guy in the parking lot was listening to some morning talk radio show in his car. I overheard one of the incredibly ditsy sounding female hosts saying something to the effect of "He he...like...now I get worried whenever I walk by an Asian kid. I'm even now scared of our office's computer repair guy!". What a fucking cunt.
I can respect what you're saying but your argument, to me, suggests that parental concerns are just a product of sensationalism. College campuses, are, by far, a safer environment than being off-campus. If parents are worried about people who might do harm to their kids, they should be focused on drunk drivers. Or predatory credit card companies. Cho is an extraordinary, exceptional, isolated case. That doesn't mean, as a society, we can't do more to prevent shit like this...but nothing that's happening right now is really designed to "ally fears." They're merely fueling them.
It's the same mentality that powers "To Catch a Predator" when the vast, vast majority of molesters aren't strangers off the innanet but family members.
There's no "real" concern here, just fear fed by endless sensationalism.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
I'm a little confused. That seems kind of chicken and egg to me. How does one determine "impact" in this case?
Primarily the millions of parents with children in college, who for all they know, could have a roomate with some of these character traits. That's another reason to me why showing (a limited) amount of the material and calling on experts to analyze it is so important right now.
Predatory credit card companies? Was that a deleted Grindhouse trailer or something? Honestly though; call it irrational, but life and death, in the minds of many, is what's at issue here.
I'm willing to bet that you're a much more rational parent than most, but I'm quite positive that a great number of them have to be, at least temporarily, concerned for their child's saftey in the aftermath of what happened, whether that's fuled by the sensational nature of this "isolated" case, or not.
Comments
Gonzales' testimony was postponed till today
my wife brought up the same point about iraq with her students last night
don't think they could relate
fly back on the plane next to an army scout who has done two fifteen month tours of iraq
opened my eyes to a different view of what is up over there
I'm not begrudging the front-page coverage - it's warranted. It's the 24-hour focus on CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. that bothers me. And no, we certainly haven't reached the point of "simply giving the majority exactly what they want all the time," but the drop in standards of journalistic integrity in all media has been unrelenting over the last couple of decades. There are hold-outs, like the NY Times, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Tabloid journalism, celebrity non-news, and violence of all stripes have replaced hard news as the main focus of most news organizations.
And Gonzales testified this morning. Check out the CNN front page for an example of what I'm talking about. You'll notice the Gonzales item on the right. After you finish looking at the picture of Cho with a gun.
Drew,
So what if it's the "worst shooting rampage in U.S. history"? If Cho hadn't "won" the award for the title, does that mean the story should NOT have generated a week's worth of front page coverage?
This was a tragedy - but so are all senseless murders. I'm willing to straight up admit that the numbers game DOES make a difference b/c it adds to the sensationalism of the situation but that only speaks to how it looms as spectacle rather than whether it's truly newsworthy or not. In other words, I'll acknowledge that I'm complicit enough to consume the news that's out there...but I hardly think that's a pure justification for sensationalizing this in the way that the media - quite predictably - has. If CNN chose to focus on other stories, I wouldn't feel cheated by them exercising more editorial restraint.
psycho's videos & photos is incredibly irresponsible
& reckless - and I would go so far as to say that if there
is a high school massacre next week by some copycat teenagers,
the blood of innocents will be on the hands of network execs.
Again - by releasing this material to the public, and repeatedly
showing it, analyzing it & making it available, the killer has won.
He gets exactly what he wanted, and it makes me sick.
Couldn't agree more.
My personal "favorite" single event relating to this was earlier this decade when five shark attacks occurred, and it was blown into an epidemic the entire summer. SHARKS - IS YOUR CHILD NEXT?!
Yeah, no doubt. No good tragedy goes unexploited.
A small note - I'm not sure what it means that "the killer has won." I think the killer "won" - in his own mind - when he started slaughtering people. Whether his message ever gets out or not isn't immaterial to that, but the only meaningful column here isn't "wins" but "losses." What the media does at this point doesn't contribute to the killer's "victory". It's indicative of media's failings. Cho simply provided the catalyst.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The V-Tech tragedy where 30+ people were murdered or Gonzales apologizing for the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys?
This story, by definition is as sensational as it gets, regardless of what the news media does with it after the fact. We're not talking about Imus here, which was a very clear example of the media making a story into more than what it really should have been.
At bottom, the Gonzales story is about whether or not the current administration has the right to fire US attorneys at will, which affects the manner in which federal law is applied throughout the country. So, I would say the Gonzales story has a greater impact on the day-to-day life of every citizen in this country.
For example, in the early '60s, before the Civil Rights movement had hit critical mass, non-violent protestors could not rely on the Justice Department for protection, because the attorneys were simply unwilling to enforce the laws that were already on the books. People were beaten and killed, and their basic rights ignored because the US attorneys, and, to be honest, Bobby Kennedy, were unwilling to go toe-to-toe with states such as Mississippi and Alabama.
That's the impact that the conduct of US attorneys and the Justice Department can have, and that's what's at stake here. Whether the the current administration at any given time can fill the rolls with attorneys who will enforce or disregard standing federal law according to the whims of the chief executive.
Which story has the greatest effect on the largest number of people:
The murder of 30+ people in Virginia? Or the massacre of 200+ people in Iraq? Or Don Imus getting fired? Or...
This is not an argument you can win easily - you want to create a quantification for news-worthiness, when really, those judgments depend on subjective decisions that should abide by more than a numbers game.
80 people die in Oakland last year...and that was only up to July. That almost never merits even LOCAL news coverage. I'm not discounting the VT tragedy but it qualifies as a national tragedy less b/c it really is and more because the spectacle of it has become national.
There have been interviews with victim's that have said that they were glad to see the video because they now understood that this kid was mentally disturbed and no longer had to ask "why" he did what he did. The constant coverage is what gets me.
I also hate to draw the same issues that have been raised already, but how many murders are there in Richmond, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, New Orleans each year? We should be focusing practical efforts to solve that type of ongoing massacre as well as address this partially media induced sensationalism.
Reporting stories that have the greatest effect on the greatest number of people is a cornerstone of journalism, not my attempt to play a subjective game of numbers.
It's not necessarily about how many people were fired or killed, etc., rather the impact (in numbers) that any given story has on the reading and viewing public.
did dude have any identifiable grievances? he was talking about how people drink cognac and "could have had it all"...I am way confused by this video. any insight?
I work with mentally ill people. Sometimes they're crazy and sometimes they're not. This guy was crazy when he did what he did and therefore had crazy rationalizations. There's no point in attempting to apply some logic rubric to this kid because he was a bonified whackjob--and that's my professional opinion. Sad but true.
Don't argue with intoxicated or crazy people because they make they're own rules that make no sense.
sounds like a Pac lyric.
I'm a little confused. That seems kind of chicken and egg to me. How does one determine "impact" in this case?
Primarily the millions of parents with children in college, who for all they know, could have a roomate with some of these character traits. That's another reason, to me, why showing (a limited) amount of the material and calling on experts to analyze it is so important right now.
I can respect what you're saying but your argument, to me, suggests that parental concerns are just a product of sensationalism. College campuses, are, by far, a safer environment than being off-campus. If parents are worried about people who might do harm to their kids, they should be focused on drunk drivers. Or predatory credit card companies. Cho is an extraordinary, exceptional, isolated case. That doesn't mean, as a society, we can't do more to prevent shit like this...but nothing that's happening right now is really designed to "ally fears." They're merely fueling them.
It's the same mentality that powers "To Catch a Predator" when the vast, vast majority of molesters aren't strangers off the innanet but family members.
There's no "real" concern here, just fear fed by endless sensationalism.
between the contents of his "plays", and references to john mark kerr (jean benet ramsey) and debra lafave (teacher on student related), i'd say with some certainty the dude was probably sexually abused at some point.
Predatory credit card companies? Was that a deleted Grindhouse trailer or something? Honestly though; call it irrational, but life and death, in the minds of many, is what's at issue here.
I'm willing to bet that you're a much more rational parent than most, but I'm quite positive that a great number of them have to be, at least temporarily, concerned for their child's saftey in the aftermath of what happened, whether that's fuled by the sensational nature of this "isolated" case, or not.
^^^^^^^^2nd Amendment advocate talking points?