I did hear about him. He used an electrical cord as a tourniquet didn't he?

are you talking about the video he sent to NBC?

A newscast showed snippets of it earlier... it was so creepy...

Headline: The Killer Speaks
 

yeah that's what I was talking about:(

I really don't think they need to be showing clips from this video on tv.

Why is that?

If only we could rewind 3 days so somebody could have killed that piece of sh*t.

now they are wondering about Cho's parents....the hatred for him...if they are safe...rumors were that they had committed suicide...now supposedly they are in a hospital with possible breakdowns...

these videos are so disturbing..seems like 9/11, the media just has to keep giving us more and more to upset us...it is coverage of a huge news event but there should be a limit...just read a psychological specialist state that we all are drawn to this for personal survival...so maybe that is why they keep reporting but when is enough, enough??

I haven't read the whole thread because I was sort of trying to shut most of the story out.

I want to ask though if anyone else thinks that the kind of media attention that mass shootings get actually contribute to future ones?

With the apparent references to the Columbine killers as "martyrs," it seems that the Virginia Tech killer has that in mind as a precedent.

I get a sense that crazy guys like this want to top the previous killings and the 100% news saturation contributes to this obsession, I think.

It's not that I want to externally limit the freedom of the press, but it seems that more self regulation might be in order to avoid sensationalizing the already horrific.

Perhaps if stories were limited to print media without video or picture links, maybe.

I don't think we really need to know what it looked like. We don't need to see the carnage. We should be able to emphasize with the dead and suffering without images of them.

I think the killers are completely responsible for their actions, and I'm not shifting responsibility to the media. But if we know that a certain kind of coverage seems to feed the monsters' disease, what compelling reason is there to cover the story in the same manner that may have feed the current case?

(The monster in this case incorporated the media into his killing spree. He mailed the tape between the two shooting locations. Shouldn't we learn from that? Maybe that the constant coverage is indecent?)

I don't agree. If only we could rewind 3 days and get him firmly committed into a mental institution for treatment.

Did anyone else think he sounded like a psychopathic napoleon dynamite? This is an appalling tragedy, but I'll take the minute amount of humour where I can get it.

Anything that would have prevented this. I wouldn't prefer death over life, but I certainly wouldn't care if someone had killed him.

Right. And yet they continue to run it as a constant story, despite how obvious it must be to them when they get a freaking video tape from the killer!!! At that point, they are clearly part of the problem, it seems to me. He imagines what you will do with his recordings; he incorporates you into the act. But they are actually airing the tape and linking the video on the websites with apparently a complete lack of self awareness.

Sensationalism is not news.

I hate the media so.

I think I watched it on Dateline last night and it was this one guy was it? That said we shouldn't call this the biggest shooting in history because it means that someone has to break this record and it's not suppose to be a record to break.

I agree with what Alphagamuga saying about the media coverage. After the incident a lot of schools have rumored to receive bomb threats and all sorts of. My fear is that some copy cat may try to top this horrible incident.

And now they just came out with the video...I don't think I could bear to watch it...