Letters from the Editor in Chief

Well, I obviously don't blame the media for this particular crime. On the other hand, what is the big deal deal... nutcase with weapons shoots 32 guys... we have seen this so many times before. And, quite frankly, who cares about the heart-warming stories of the victims. All victims have heart-warming stories except the 600,000 or so in Iraq [robust research, best practice.. stories about the Lancet article are now appearing in the British press, perhaps of interest to us as well] Really, however many fell victim to some loon we have our own guy charged, but not convicted, lawyers take note, on his pig farm. There is no way of stopping murder by nut-cases, but there is a way of stopping murder by states, and that is by the truth. So what, the CBC is now going to saturate its coverage with this trivial Virginia incident while ignoring the deaths of not hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands, but indeed hundreds of thousands. By all means keep us distracted by Oprah style outrage about a mere incident, but really, why do you not report on
what the is now becomig clear about the John Hopkins study [state of the statistical art] on murder on a much larger scale by the state.

Part Two:

I'm in the PRC, and 'everyone' here has this fear that the Americans would blame Koreans in general for this. I assured them that the Yanks know a nut-case when they see one. Odd, they simultaneously think America is both better and worse than I would judge it.

But for the CBC, in my opinion, make no mistake, this is a trivial incident. Now what about our Polar 8? That is a story that has consequences.

Cheers,
dba

The answer to your question is that
all of those faces, some even more appealing than the two you chose to distinguish, will be forgotten within a few weeks. That's life in the self-centred 21st century.
This has been an evil display of hatred revealed to us by Facebook and other social networking sites, and bloggers. Not by journalism, as was Columbine and Waco. That says a lot about changes underway. The massacre at VTech is instructive for Canadians, but only for those who worry about our the monsters living among us. His school looked out for Mr. Cho's best interests - he received advice from staff, and some of his peers who responded to his vicious literary efforts and to those nasty emails from "?". They struggled to understand him, and a department head even volunteered to tutor him. All in vain effort to be help a student climb out of the pit. Their reward was to have him turn on them all, expressing his contempt for their values and for a great society which gave his family a new start.
Our world is filling with adults who refuse take no for an answer, and prefer, again like children, to destroy what they cannot possess. Yoiu news division is going to be extremely busy in 2007.

The Runagatesclub blogger in Vancouver

According to UNICEF, 30,000 children under the age of five die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.” That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year.

What about a headline that reads, "30,000 Children Found Dead From Starvation", or one a week later, "Child Death Toll Tops 200,000". At the rate these children die, about 1,250 per hour, it takes about 2.2 hours to equal the number of victims of the 9/11 attacks, a little over a week for the Boxing Day earthquake/tsunami and about six and a half years for the 73 million lives lost in the second world war. Its interesting that the death rate is very close to that of these, and other tragedies seen to be newsworthy. Except that these deaths go on every hour of every day of every year and are mostly preventable.

Yes, the Virginia Tech shootings and these other events both natural and man-made are tragic and warrant news coverage and acts of remembrance but, why are the biggest human tragedies of all almost completely ignored?

Anti-depressants can be deadly.
Media reports indicate that the gunman was being treated for depression. These powerful drugs may help some people; in others, the drugs can induce severe agitation, feelings of hopelessness, paranoia, suicidal, or violent thoughts extra to the original medical condition.
Details are sketchy at this point, so this is pure speculation. But IF Cho Seung-Hui became unwound under the influence of anti-depressants, then the gun control issue becomes secondary. Rather than demonize the gunman, maybe we should look at Big Pharma and dangerous drugs. Doctors hand out anti-depressants like candy. These drugs can make ticking time bombs go off.
Normal people--even young men with a grudge—do not normally go around shooting strangers. This young man was not a "dark, demented killer", a "monster" or a "psycho". Such labels may make us feel better--we don't have to look any deeper--but they explain nothing. Cho Seung-Hui was ill.

It amazes me to see how many people hijack this forum to rant about how other tragedies supercede the masacre at VTech. These other tragedies certainly are very important, but the issue of concern here is how the media can do its part in preventing people who are borderline psychotic from being triggered to start a massacre.

Let's stay focused people!

I personally appreciate what CBC has done to make sure that the killer's identity was not the focus of their coverage. I applaud CBC for this.

Blah blah... save it for your book. You're running a TV/Web news organization. You are utterly alone on this tonight (Wed, 8:40pt).
Not cover the shooter? Huh? Look around - CTV, Global, Globe and Mail, all the major news sites have pictures and video of the shooter at Virginia Tech. Lots of pictures, some video, and great stories that certainly don't glorify. They explain. You guys? A copy story, buried. No picture.

I'm not a huge fan of the CBC, but my hat is off to you for your coverage of this incident. I get my news from the internet, and am not rewarding either Global or CTV with my clicks until the media frenzy they are perpetuating around the killer ends.

For the record, I hope that the heroic act of Liviu Librescu, and others, will be the lesson taken away from this (as well as maybe better training for the VT campus police).

It's possible - after all, the Amish didn't allow the media much access, and the "big" story from their tragedy was their ability to forgive.

I think the CBC is absolutely correct in limiting the coverage of the shooter to a minimum. Notoriety is a huge part of what motivates sick people to self-destruct in front of millions of viewers (and tragically take as many victims along as possible). The media are a monumental force in our culture, and as such, MUST take responsibility for what and how they report.

I was absolutely delighted to hear that CBC Radio News has eschewed the temptation to broadcast the killer's audio, and although I missed the TV News yesterday I assume this is the case across the board.

This is a brilliant decision; so much of the motivation for these massacres is media-stoked immortality for profoundly disturbed people.

CBC has distinguished itself by taking this tough but responsible position.

I commend you for handling this story well and encourage you to continue to focus on the victims and the familys and friends who deserve to be recognized and remembered. I believe strongly that by focusing on the shooter and showing his pictures and videos are only giving him what he wanted and I don't believe that he deserves that. So many other newscasts are making the mistake of focusing on the shooter and continuously replaying his video and I think that this only encourages more school shootings as disturbed people see how much credit this person gets and thinks that if they do the same thing they will be remembered too. I believe we have a real problem in our society today and one way to help solve it is to ignore the shooter, not give him any attention,and to focus on the victims, what they left behind and what they could have become had their lives not been stolen from them. Thank-you.

Journalistic integrity and media responsibility actually exist? Thank you CBC for taking the high road and ignoring the ratings game. Too bad other media outlets do not follow suit. Tony, take a bow and get as good a nights sleep as possible. This madman has now been legitimized but not by you or the CBC. Keep up the good work

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this correct and wise decision. Perhaps when we stop celebrating murderers and taking away the fame they gain from such horrific acts, we will remove the motivation for this type expression of their desperation and rage.

I commend CBC on its decision not to air the tapes or publish the writings of a killer. The argument that "people have a right to know" doesn't carry wait in such instances. The documents could be made available in the form of a report for some who feel the need to know details, or for purposes of studying the mind of such killers to find ways of preventing more killings.

But when this killer and Gill both stated they admired the Columbine killers, we know there is a direct relationship between the publicity these murderers receive, and the inclination of like minded people looking for attention to do the same.

Thank you for showing media is capable of choosing ethically, and in the interest of the public, even at the expense of ratings based on sensationalism.

It seems to me that for a generation of lonely, ill, boys becoming infamous is the only way to leave their mark. And being on t.v. and web, even posthumously seems to be the prize they seek.

The fact that the killer put his press kit together in between shootings says it all; in North America, being infamous is better than being anonymous and neglected.

I think the focus should be on mental health treatment. Why do so many fall through the cracks? How can educators, parents, physicians work togther to better identify and treat the ill before they become a danger to themselves and others?

Instead of focusing on biographies of victims and murderers the media should instead do some in-depth work on access to mental health professionals, what rules govern/limit educators, what role the Young Offender's Act plays and at what point does personal choice to not want mental health treatment get trumped by society's right to safety?

In the mean time, the front page photos of the killer in his pose and pretty girls in tears, may have already provided inspiration for another lost boy to make a plan.

CBC has done a superior job of balancing here. Thank you for covering this tragic story without glorifying the man responsible for so much sorrow. The CBC's bold action in this case is exemplary. Bravo, Mr. Burman.

Thank-you for being responsible and not showing the vedio of the sick little punk who massacred 31 wonderful young people at VT.

The media down South could take some lessons.

With much appreciation.

Norm Fair

I too would like to applaude CBC's deciscions on the way that they have handled this tragedy. As one of the two primary sources of my daily news online (the other being the Edmonton Sun), I have found that CBC.ca's treatment has been by far the easiest for me to digest.

The focus on the tragedy, the victims, and most importiantly -the facts- has kept me from being totally overwhelmed.

Unfortunately, the thing to worry about the most now are the ever-feared 'copy cat' incidents. The other stations have posted the gory details, and in doing so will spark ideas in the minds of other troubled people. CBC has tried to minimize this possibility with their coverage and focus on the tradgedy, not the killer.

Now is not the time to argue on gun control, the evils of anti-depressnats, or the like.

Now is the time to explain that this was categorically the wrong way to deal with matters, and to pray that this nightmare is not repeated again.

My hat comes off to you Tony Burman and the rest of the staff, and may your integrity never waver.

If there is one thing we should learn from this, it should be what can be done to help prevent this in future. We can’t prevent every tragic event, but by taking a look at the psychological pain this person was going through we might better understand what we can do as a society to reduce it. I understand that there are many people that tried to help this person, but I guess nothing got through to him. There are however many people out there that are experiencing psychological pain that we can get through to. He is not a Paul Bernardo, or a Robert Pickton. They all took pleasure in killing. This person clearly did not, he didn’t take pleasure in anything in life. I can't even imagine what I would be going through if someone dear to me was killed, but dwelling on their stories won't prevent it in the future. No one is glorifying what he did by giving him coverage.

Your right he did this so that he would be heard. And right he should be heard, because he needed help. Not someone to pat him on the back and tell him that he needs help. He needed someone to listen to him, listen to his deep hurt, and not tell him he was wrong for thinking it, but instead help him look at life from a different perspective. He ranted about the rich kids....maybe the privileged will walk around with a little more humility. That is just one example. We all affect each other. We should ALL be more aware of how our actions affect others.

It is the tragic loss of life of the innocent that should propel us to look into this person's head. Do not misunderstand me, my point of view on this matter stems whole heartedly from my respect and compassion for the 32 innocent who died, and my desire to do what we can to prevent this from happening again. Because we can do something. We can pay more attention to our children, we can be aware of how we affect others. 1 in a million have the capacity to go this far, but millions more are just unhappy people who deserve our attention.

Good call, CBC. Just about the perfect balance. Information yes;sensationalism no. I watched a former FBI profiler last night on CNN pleading with Anderson Cooper that they should not braodcast the videos and photos because of the likelihood of them encouraging copycats. All Cooper would say is that CNN had spend some time debating that issue, and clearly they had decided to continue to go against the advice of the professionals, because they were repeating the footage within a few minutes. But of course, I'm baised. I'm a college instructor, and am more interested in preventing this sort of thing, and less interested in boosting TV news ratings.

What a typically CBC journalistic decision: CBC knows better than me what's better for me.

Truly, I never appreciated just how disturbed these young killers can become until I watched this disturbing video.

I made the informed choice to click and watch it, to frown and furrow my brow and try to learn how such a monster could be created. It disturbed me enough that now I am moved to action:

Now I will write more letters about mental health care, phychiatric monitoring, zero-tolerance -- and follow up! -- and all the things that will make schools safer.

Hiding behind a journalistic cloak of purity helps no one but the self-righteous.

I understand that CBC is taking the "higher ground" by not showing the offensive video and stills of the Virginia Tech killer. However they are out there on other networks including NBC. I don't believe that their coverage is better but simply responsive to their mandate to push the easy story, "crazed killer" while failing to probe bigger issues ie. gun violence, mental health issues etc. So you chose your path and I am in a sense proud that my network CBC makes more thoughtful choices but I also wonder if on a larger scale of the viewing public, "Does it really matter?"

I'm not even going near the debate wrt: the right to know, etc. I am simply very glad that CBC has elected not to show the images, text and video. I just don't want to see it and I do not want to give this sad creature the coverage he so badly wanted. I as well as some of my colleagues have also taken issue with the front page of today's printed press. The creep is dead and gone straight to hell. Let's spend time thinking of the victims and all those around them who so badly need support, compassion and maybe even a bit of privacy.
Kudos to the CBC Editorial Staff.

Not broadcasting the rancid material of a madman was the right call. In this day and age of "Jerry Springer" newscasting it is refreshing to see that CBC has a standard of decency and common sense. It is the victims who should be remembered, not the madman.

Thank you Mr. Burman and CBC.

I teach at a university. Yesterday, I talked about the events at Virginia Tech in my junior engineering class. I asked if anyone had any comments or wished to talk about anything. There were only a couple of comments. No more.

That afternoon three students came to where I was working and talked about Virginia Tech for nearly 30 minutes. One of the issues they discussed was how the U.S. news media is "handling the situation." They see the U.S. media focusing greatly on the shooter and using language such as "biggest, most people killed" and other superlatives that could serve as a challenge to a copy-cat to try for a greater "record."

One student told me several of her/his classmates talked about what happened and addressed the issue of "what if it happened at our university?" They talked about what they thought each of us would do if our classroom was attacked by a shooter. I sensed an uneasy feeling in these students.

I find what happened at Virginia Tech had a large impact on many of the students at this university.

I want to thank you (Tony Burman & CBC) for taking a wonderful journalistic position regarding the V-Tech shootings. As one of your phone-in listeners stated on Ontario-Today it is very important have at least "one channel to turn to" for responsible coverage of this terrible massacre; thereby rendering moot the argument that the copy-cat-potential you choose not to cover is "out there (e.g., internet, other networks) anyway." What is particularly troubling about this V-Tech shooting case is that the killer actually took the time (in between his masacres) to send what amounted to a sophisticated (self-glorifying) News Release to an all-to-willing-to-be-manipulated media network (NBC). Also troubling is that this killer also referred to the Colorado killers (media-generated heroes) as heroic inspiration. So again thank you, not only for giving audiences a responsible choice, but for providing a true example too which other media networks can aspire.

Yours in support of CBC,

Paul

I think the CBC has dropped the ball by not showing a video clip or an audio blip of Cho. When I viewed them on NBC (in the needlessly saturated coverage of this event), it provided me with a better understanding of who this person was -- clearly he was unbalanced -- than I had gained in viewing a passport-style photograph or even reading a few quotes from his ramblings. By your rationale, you should no longer show video or audio of other mass murderers such as (extreme but notable examples) Hitler or Saddam Hussein....or even Lee Harvey Oswald.

With all due respect, I do not need the CBC to cleanse the news for me. You should be reporting the news and reflecting reality, not flogging a selectively sugar-coated version of the world. We're grown ups -- we can take it. We need to.

I was informed by CBC radio news, while driving, that NBC received the package and handed it over to "the authorities." Admittedly, my first thought was, there's no way they didn't record it first. And I was fully expecting to see the images on TV when I returned home, which was in fact the case. My cynicism is a trained one. In the last decade or so I have learned to expect that media, especially television and internet, respond primaily to shock value, and its underlying profit potential, to the exclusion of just about any other value you can name.

Why are news outlets always trying to second guess material to which the public should be exposed? I commend NBC's decision to air the tapes they received. It's news, plain and simple. Yes, one has to be sensitive to some of the more graphic material that sometimes becomes available. But I feel the intelligence and discrimination of the viewer is questioned by drawing arbitrary lines about what is acceptible and what is not. The task of CBC's news division is to present the news in a balanced and thorough manner. The only way that news such as this tragedy can "glorify" is if the balance is lost and "presentation" becomes "propaganda."

Thank you CBC for the choice. I've been feeling pummeled with images of the killer and had his sob story shoved down my throat. There is no escaping the media coverage, it is everywhere. Whether you choice to not air the images or video is an ethically supieror one to your counterparts is not something everyone will agree on. What is undeniable though is that CBC dares to be the one out of the many that is willing to stand against the rabid sheep. I disagree that CBC is cleansing the news for us and making descions for us - on the contrary, I finally feel like I have a choice. It's not a secret that this footage is there. There's no secret password required for access but I, and no one else, should be the one that makes the descion to see it or not. Reporting the news should not be just that. The news shouldn't feel like a tangled mesh that is inescapable.

It was good not to glamorize the killer, but that is not enough. There are many citizens walking in the streets and suffer from the same symptoms. They are depressed. Every one of them could become a killer at any moment of time. What to do with all these people which some polls estimate them in the USA of more than 40% of the population? After every event the administration says we will study the case so it would not be repeated! The media’s responsibility is to discuss the problem from this point of view. Why these people hate the others especially the rich? Why half of the population is distressed?
As we watch on the TV, every thing in the USA is fine and great! Modern building, clean streets, every body is laughing especially on the morning shows, every body has a big house and one or two cars, every body has carte blanch from his bank, the economy is in great shape and so on. Why they should be depressed? Since the economic system is working and brilliant; what is the problem with these stressed peoples?
This is the right direction which the media should take and discuss with the citizens. The first step you should take is to release the killer’s letter in which he explains his point of view. When reading the letter and discussing it; we can understand the real problem. After understanding we try to find solutions. We do not need the rubbish video clip and the pictures.
Can you do it? I don’t think so because it is a NATIONAL SECURITY affairs.

I'm not convinced. Are we missing the opportunity to see inside the mind of a sick person? Perhaps we can see in him on this video something that we see in someone we know? There are people I know who I worry may go over the edge, so to speak. After seeing some of this video I have a better idea of what to look for.
I understand that it's a difficult decision and I am not about to say which path is the better to follow, however I do feel a bit uneasy about CBC taking it upon itself to babysit me. I've always had a problem with news organizations filtering news and deciding what I should and should not see.

I think that, unfortunately, the cat has long since escaped the bag. The CBC and other news organizations are really in a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" situation.

If you do report extensively on the killer, you further tramutize the victim's families, and you risk provocing another killer to "beat the high score".

If you do not report on the killer, by minimizing his or her exposure, and generalizing what they wanted, you risk the next killer going to greater lengths, just to see what it takes to have their picture on the front page and headlining the 6 o'clock news.

I think the best a news organization can do is to report the facts as they come to light, report fairly and as unbiased as possible, avoid showing truely gruesome images and videos, and avoid glorifying the murderers and killers.

And the CBC has, in my opinion, done fairly well in reporting this tragedy.

So the CBC has decided to bury its head in the sand and pretend that evil does not exist in the world hiding behind the false veil of journalistic integrity. If the Tony Burman and the CBC was so principled, they would remember that reporting the news rather than trying to shape it is their job..and should be their goal as journalists.

I watched the video of the Virginia Tech killer. Some of it was chilling and scary but overall it was a picture of a pathetic individual. It's rather clear that showing the video makes it more unlikely that this event will spawn copycats. Only when the complete details of this weak pitiful character are suppressed can a 'hero-worship' mythology flourish.

Virginia Tech university officials and the Blackwood mental health community have been busy proclaiming "there's nothing we could do". I happen to subscribe to the 'Bridge over the River Kwai' philosophy that said "there's always one more thing to do". Just think about how the events could have unfolded differently if someone had the courage to do one more thing. Instead their inaction allowed Cho to operate quite openly in this new Oprah-ized non-judgemental society that forbids the recognition of evil.

Cho was busy erecting billboards for two years announcing his intentions and they were essentially ignored. If officials will not act when such clear intent is obvious, there is no hope of ever preventing a similar situation. There are likely many "Cho's" out there who will be far more subtle and under the radar.

Mr Burman, I understand your intent. But the reality is that ignoring evil does not make it go away. Shielding Canadians from these videos in the long run guarantees that we will not know what to do when evil appears in our community. Or maybe we will just follow your example and bury our heads in the sand thereby allowing the perpetrators to have free rein to commit their heinous deeds.

I applaud your decision not to air the audio and video made by the killer. The fact of the matter is he recorded the audio and video and sent it to NBC for the sole purpose of getting attention and notoriety. I find it odd how law enforcement officials refer to the "investigation" of the tragedy. There is not much to investigate when the lunatic committed suicide, and provided a manifesto explaining his motivation. The best response against what seems to be an epidemic of deranged individuals going on shooting sprees is to limit the publicity associated with this type of tragedy in the newsmedia as CBC has admirably done.

As I very rarely find myself able to applaud anything any more on today's CBC, it is doubly satisfying to be able to say: Well done, Mr. Burman! Notwithstanding the specious and hypocritical griping ("I'm an adult"; "I wanna decide for meself", etc.) of those who slaver after every blood-soaked bit of yellow journalism so abundantly available on TV and radio (the VT massacre being only one--passing--example), the CBC was absolutely correct in restricting its coverage as it did. Compare this, please, with the egregious conduct of another national network that shall remain nameless (hint: "Canada's most-watched newscast"...): after the first 'round' of pictures, audio and over-the-top commentary,
the continuing commentary (now as voice-over) was accompanied by a full-screen, looped slide show of the photos! One of the very last images shown for the entire newscast? Why, the one showing the bloodiest body being carried from the scene, of course! I think no further comment is necessary - or deserved.

In an information and image-saturated age like ours, methodologies become increasingly transparent. The power of TV and the Internet is that they “naturalize” audiences with an awareness of underlying technique and assemblage that becomes as referential as any subject matter. Given contemporary levels of immersement and aptitude (YouTube, you name it), today’s public is as acquainted with organizing information as they are with absorbing content.
Many cultural theorists have postured about what happens when “the zeitgeist becomes an app,” to coin a phrase. For those in the know, it’s backwards to McLuhan or onto the “hyperreal.” For the rest of us, it’s an unsettling feeling that de-sensitization and vicariousness may be the end as much as the means in a future consisting of discordant levels of proto-reality. As the perceptual conventions and classifications of “remote viewing”— its ‘discourse’— become pervasive, what happens to more atavistic, face-to-face concepts? Ones like privacy, dignity, propriety, and respect for the dead?
Corporate news is always a useful “canary in the mineshaft” in this regard. With respect to Virginia Tech, media requests for interviews far outnumbered comments on witnesses’ blogs. One I read from CBC Newsworld began, “Hi, sorry about today.” Messages from other outlets included phrases like “I’d love to chat with you about this horror,” and “Can you shoot us an email now your girlfriend’s in surgery?”
For its part, the NY Times “Lede” printed this: “[name] was among those unaccounted for in the wake of the shootings. Her friends’ efforts to figure out what happened to her are heart wrenching, and outsiders can go along for the rollercoaster ride, eavesdropping through Facebook and other forums. Read Article..”
Underneath that was a photo and caption: “[so&so’s] picture on Myspace. She was killed Monday.”
The media helps set what are now widely applied social agendas. What do attitudes like these signify for the future?

Thank you for making a socially responsible decision. Within hours of the VT tragedy, the airwaves were filled with experts explaining that killers of this sort are driven by a craving for notoriety. The outlets that then rushed to deliver that exposure are shamefully hypocritical. There is a vast difference between news and sensationalism.

I applaud your decision not to glamorize the killer or sellout for the ratings. Sometimes it is necessary just to do the decent thing.

To much of this is just voyeurism.

Media coverage on these types of incidents seem to be based on ratings and financial gain for media corporations.The glamorization of murder breeds copy cat murders or mass murders in this instance.

NBC, CNN, and their Canadian counterparts have given a forum for a serial killer, and have provided and incentive to other mass murderers, terrorists, serial killers who look for their 15 minutes of fame.

Rob L

This is a reply to Robb Beattie a few posts up. Your observations of the American newsmedia are insightful. Particularly your comment on respect for the dead. This is something that is becoming obsolete in today's world where life seems to be cheapened daily. Just look at the inordinate amount of coverage given to the drug-fuelled death of Anna Nicole Smith. Her death was not what was newsworthy but the legal wranglings surrounding the question of inheritance. It seems to me that basic human values are being eradicated and replaced with new ones that as yet do not have a name. Your last comment on the attitude of newsmedia and its impact on the future is of interest. I believe the immediate future is not very bright as people will more and more develop their attitudes, morals, beliefs, and values from the Internet which can espouse any idea, attitude, moral or belief.
With regard to the Virginia massacre, I feel that an investigatin should focus on what type of web sites the killer visited and what were his written contributions to them?

As every morning the first thing I did this morning was listen to the news on Radio 1. I was heartened to hear of your decision. I think my day would have been worse if it had begun with hearing a killer's voice. I had more than enough in the minute or two of AC360 on CNN I could stand to watch the evening before.

Now, if you could just apply the same logic to your coverage of Iraq, the public may actually get a more realistic picture of what is happening and Iraq's enemies may have to deal with finding a new vehicle to hock their free advertizing.

Sorry, CBC but I find your decision a very disappointing act of censorship. We deserved the whole story, to make up outr own minds on it. People ask why he did it? This is the most direct "why". After days of saturation broadcasting, in which countless commentators and "experts" get to speculate on the nature of this man, you then block out the words of the one person who knew him best - himself. You ask us viewers to sit there and judge this guy's life and death, but you silence his voice on it - as if to prove this act was committed by some nameless machine and not a person at all. You may not like it, but it is your job to present the world as it is, not simply as you wish it would be. It is your job to stare facts in the face, not blunt all their sharp edges. Odd too, because usually it is the US networks who "sanitize" their programming, not the Canadian ones. Sad to say, it was you who took the easy way out this time.

I fully agree with the decision of the CBC not to air the of the video of the murderer's ravings. The 'news' outlets that did air the video are shameless sensationalist stations. There is a vast difference between news and sensationalism. I am glad to see that the CBC has not lowered its standards to the level of 'news' exemplified by Fox News.

As the grandparents of two college-age grandchildren, we were comforted and very proud of your decision!

Questions- Did CBC provide a choice for viewers to see a complete picture on the Internet, radio or the television? Did CBC know that public network is still required to do a comprehensive reporting with variety of choices for the population, since you do have CBC Newsworld and the Internet, which are mostly paid access (cable/satellite)or limited access that can be put a note of caution so that not everyone needs to watch the shows? No defending to the other network tv or news outlets. It is cable network duty to announce these videos and pictures are disturbing and people can have choices of viewing or not viewing. As for Internet viewing, it should be registered access viewing and not public for such kind of events. That way, at least there are choices for people.

Three cheers (and many more) to CBC for your decision. It shows empathy and consideration for the victims and their families.

I am always disappointed in seeing that the american media is obsessed with sensationalism. I have lost respect for the poor judgment NBC has shown in airing the video of Cho Seung-Hui. I find it gives 'ammuniton' to other deranged individuals.

I find it disgusting that, right after this massacre, NBC would proud to be the first ones to show the world top notch news. It demonstrates their lack of sensitivity and it is an insult to the victims and their families. His face is all over the media just as he had planned - exposure.

My heart goes to the victims' families and I feel sad with NBC's decision.

Unfortunately, I do not think it is enough for the americans to revisit the gun control issue - sad indeed.

Thank You to the news teams and broadcast teams at CBC for showing thoughtful, reasoned care and integrity in the handling of this and other gun violence stories.

Yes, we should be well-informed. However, broadcasting video and printing transcripts such as those found on NBC doesn't inform us -- it sickens us at best, and further extends the suffering and damage.

My heartfelt thanks to CBC in their measured decision against the potential glorification of derangement and violence.

We support your decision to not air the NBC package from the killer at Virginia Tech. The tragedy becomes overshadowed by the sensationalized appetite of the media. The families deserve to have their lost ones honored - not have the world focus on their killer.

We will continue to watch CBC and hope that you continue to provide quality news reporting.

Virgina Tech . It was a horror ,You, informed us of the horrific event and you have my admiration that you limited the content . All of us who heard the news grieve. My hats off to the Editor and all of you who restrained from the nessesity of detail. Let us not be contained with the horrific details. Rather. May we all say a prayer for the families and friends,so personally effected and do our best to prevent anything similar occurring again

Bravo to you and the many who have decided this positive action/reaction. I agree with you completely. The killer's message does not have to be inundated time and time again with each media outlet, I am University student and it is really scary to think that this could some how happen in Canada. I think it is important to learn from this horrific tragedy, but to focus on the victims, not the killer.

I fully support the decision not to air the video footage.

Too few networks think of the possible consequences of the stories they air but, once again, the CBC acted with integrity and sensitivity in an emotionally volatile situation.

Hats of to you for standing up for what is right, even if you're standing alone (with a lot of public support behind you.)

You are right on the mark! I am proud of the CBC for its decision to serve the public good rather than pander to the lowest form of curiosity.

I applaud for CBC's decision not to broadcast the horrific images of the killer. "This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue". It is really a slap on the face of the victims' families to see the devil's face everywhere on the media. It's a shame that NBC and other networks choose the way to "honor" the killer instead of the victims. I am afraid there would be more copycats and even bigger massacre in the near future for the huge media "success" as the killer planned.

Thank you NBC for broadcasting everything you did. What we watch is our choice. I wanted to see the inside of this person and try to understand. As a teacher, I need this information. As citizens, we save lifes when we can help prevent these kinds of things. We can't prevent any of it, if we don't know what causes someone to be this way. If it is too much for you, don't look, but I have a right to the news. If news isn't going to be broadcasted, then what is? Human interest stories? Please!! Everyone knows that there are difficult things to see on the news, everyone has a choice. I'm proud of NBC. I don't care at all if they made millions off of it. Those of us trying to help young people need this information. I don't have time to hunt it down on the net. It is news, I should get to see it ON THE NEWS. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. Do I only get to watch what you want to watch? Lets grow up here please. These kids need help. If we don't understand how to help them we can expect more of this. Just calling them names like "mad man," isn't going to make this stop. People should expect excessive coverage when there is a significant event. That is how enough people hear about it. If you don't want to watch it, turn the station to one of your other hundred channels. Reason we don't know about the 1,200 children dying each hour is because people don't want to hear the truth,"news." They want to hid out, and hope it never knocks on their own door. People are angry about NBC broadcasted the truth. Grow up!!

My pride as a Canadian was heightened because of the way the CBC chose to cover the Virginia Tech massacre. I can't imagine how the parents of the kids who died felt about seeing the killer being glorified by the american news media. This was irresponsible on behalf of NBC, CNN, FOx etc. Thank you CBC for your focus on the victims and for providing an intelligent and responsible coverage of such a horrific acts of violience.

The news media has done it again. You have written and broadcast a template for any other deranged person to do a copy cat killing at a college or university.
It is important to report the news but to go on digging and chasing the story at nausium is at the very least tedious.
The sensational coverage of the event also desensitizes us to such events. I do not listen to the impact statements anymore.

I am disgusted by those who would shame CBC for their admirable decision. If these other networks are such bastions of "true" journalism, why do you not listen to the hordes of experts they have been parading on the air constantly? If CBC made such a terrible decision, why are all these experts discussing copycat killings and slow burning fuses? This is not about censorship or not acknowledging evil in the world. This is about respect for victims and their families. But above all else, this is about not giving a mentally deranged mass murderer celebrity status. Thanks to these great networks, this psycho got exactly what he wanted, notoriety. He paid homage to Columbine and just wait, there will be plenty paying homage to him. And as for this argument that there are deranged killers lurking everywhere? I am sure that there are, but we can give them one less reason to go off. To those of you out there who like the CBC still have a shred of common sense and decency I tip my hat to you.

Good job CBC. Your chice not to ait the video removes the notoiety people like this so desperately need.

To argue that this video has journalistic merit or that we are hiding our heads in the sand is at best naive and at worst stupid.

There is a direct correlation between the media coverage and the motivation to commit the act. Lets stop providing these people with validation.

If you broadcast Cho's lurid images and maniacal rantings you risk a similarly demented miscreant committing a copycat crime in the future.
If you don't, the signs that help identify a future mass murderer before he kills may be hidden.
It is a tough call but I would err on the side of openness.

The CBC has exhibited restraint and good judgment. What purpose could be served by broadcasting Cho's rant? Only the tittilation of armchair psychologists and the enjoyment of the emotionally bankrupt. The same has "need to know" fuelled the purchase
of millions of newpapers (the Princess of Wales accident), hundreds of points in news entertainment rating game (Columbine), and hundreds of television and radio talk shows (take your pick).

There is a need to know. The important things. A senseless tragedy has occurred. The culprit, a young man, is dead. Our potential as humans is diminished.

Oh please spare me your "right to be horrified" line. You love the gory details and have no intention of learning how to recognize this behavior in the future. If you were so interested there are published articles available ... but that would mean you may have to get off your duff and actually work for it. You'll take the easy road - have it available 24/7, watch, get excited and forget about it. Just like every other sensational story some media choose to exploit. You're right - I don't have to watch ... NBC or CNN or FOX but thank God I can watch CBC and get the information without the violence-pornography.

bravo cbc bravo finally some moral integrity in the news, i was very turn off by the cbc lately when the cbc kept giving news time to anna nicole smith and suzanne summers mansion burning down, i thought you had turned int etalk daily. but you just got me back for your moral stand. thank you, you possibly prevented more blood shed

Firstly, it is both unrealistic and naive to expect a complete picture of any news event from any single source. Every best intentioned journalist whose goal is to remain "neutral" ultimately allows some part of themselves to slip into the story, if not the editor's, producer's or broadcaster's for that matter.

Neutrality is best exhibited when dealing with facts alone (but that can make for a short story). Current events (hyper-current events?) attempt to create from the events a running narrative, assumptions and all, well before the story has ascended to it's final arc, and that is not news, that's entertainment.

It's Time Versus Content and when given nothing factually important/ relevant is actually available for print/broadcast we subject ourselves to speculative summations which have no business being aired, or to gratuitous videos that satiate our primal fascinations (you tube, 'nuff said.)

News is on-going but in our greediness for immediate knowledge, we tend to forget that the investigative elements require time. This is a fundamental crisis facing our modern times.

I would like to add that this event was a no-brainer. Most sympathetic folk deplore sensless violence and murder, as they should. The major networks seized upon an opportunity to exploit an apolitical story (though psycho-social questions, not to mention State gun laws as issues to be examined obviously surfaced) as moral messengers/ co-grievers for/with the masses.

I can imagine horror without having to witness it. Having said that
I'll wait for the documentaries and/or the essays/books. A different kind of journalism, and better suited to news that is on-going (in it's own time, untreated; exclusive of the anchor at a desk buying our attention)

There's no need to compete; so Stick to the facts CBC, just the facts. And better to hold back and get it right then jump into the feeding frenzy and add to the hysteria.

Think thrice, print once.

I applaud the CBC's restraint around the issue of publishing the awful video of the killer from the latest school shooting in Virginia. I totally agree that we must focus on the victims and their stories, in order to lessen the chance of copy-cat situations. Thanks for putting humanity first.

I watched the Today show when they aired the video & script from Mr. Cho.
I think it should not have been shown, only his picture.
The media gave Mr Cho want he wanted, a voice in his madness.

I am so impressed with the CBC. Are the US media outlets aware of the stance you took on airing the video? If NBC and other outlets are so concerned about delivering the news, why do they not report on CBC's decision to refrain from showing the video? Your decision makes me proud to be a Canadian!!!!

I was very disappointed that the USA and other countries broadcasted the killer's video tapes. Learning that CBC chose not to, made me proud to be Canadian! Thank you for your wise decision-making. How can we say that the killer's act was abhorrent and then encourage like-minded people to copycat him, by fulfilling the killer's desire to be published. The message to the public should have been: "Sorry! We don't broadcast the work of killers. It has been trashed." By making them famous, we can expect to see more of the same in the future. Then the blood of the victims will be on our hands.

As a Canadian living in the US, I was disturbed by this country's media coverage of this event. I made a concious effort not to read any articles that glorified the killer. It was refreshing to see that I could count on my fellow Canadians and the CBC not to participate in this. My fear is that the more airtime it gets, the next killer will have to do one better. What is next, "killer cam" where the next shooter will broadcast his rampage live on the web? If the networks choose to to air the garbage that this lunatic produced, they should be asked (forced?) to pay large sums of fines into a victim's fund for the families of Virgina Tech students lost...while they are at it, they might as well start a fund for the next tragedy...with coverage like this how can any crazed killer resist.

I agree with CBC's decisions not to broadcast the videos of the virginia tech killer. Well done.

GOOD FOR YOU CBC!!!

I honestly feel that NBC (and all other networks) broadcasting the video accomplices them to the murders. He did this in order for his video to be broadcast. Other deranged minds will think similarly. It is a shame that the media is now a part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

CBC's decision to minimize coverage of the killer in the Virginia Tech shootings inspires hope for a better future during a week when this hope was becoming very dim.

Thank you.

I applaud the CBC's decision not to show the NBC tapes. Our media, video games and movies are saturated with gratuitous violence that desensitizes our society. Reading some of the European media articles on the Virginia Tech. events helps balance the American media's views. Thank you Tony Burman.

I watched the thunder storm coverage on the twisted killer as I hold my disgust. I wonder what motivates news networks to sensationalize such a tragic event with no consideration of social consequences. "It sells", some people say. But how can the media assume that all the audiences are mentally stable and robust enough to view such visual stimulation? What made the news editors decide to animate the killer's grotesque pictures so that they fly into your face? Should the media's task be reporting rather than creating? Should the right to watch be left to the audience? And how many parents had to keep the TV unplugged so that their children would not be exposed to these images?
Thank you CBC, I found the voice I want to hear.

they broadcasted the final statements of the BTK killer on special reports across the networks.

why did he kill people?

to become famous.

another guy shot john lennon and they've now made a movie about him.

why did he shoot john lennon?

to become famous.

i do not want crazy murders to become famous. they should be forgotten.

we've made a clear message to people out there:

if you kill alot of people you are garuanteed to have whatever crap you want to say shown on prime time news stations.

and you will be most definitely be famous.

cbc has shown an integrity that i felt was not possible by the media out there.

thank you.

I'm an American. I disagree completely with your opinion that NBC shouldn't have aired the Cho material when they did. Confusion and wild speculation breed fear and distrust and inappropriate thoughts and actions within the public. With the bit of video and photos and writings, NBC has shown us that Cho was a sick, deranged individual, not a racial or religious fanatic. He didn't 'snap' overnight, but descended into a personal madness that could hardly have been created by video games or tv shows or media coverage of other such events. A group of people deciding what the rest of us can hear, see and read based on their particular sensibilities or mind-set is called censorship, the bane of a free and informed society. This was a very public incident that has badly affected huge numbers of people, myself included, while personally affecting a small group of people. Media coverage is always hard on those personally involved in something like this, but I believe the greater good was served. I believe you're wrong.

I turned the channel if the voice of the alleged killer was on tv. I agree with the decision of CBC not to carry his comments.

I am really upset that in this country and in the US. we have not had a discussion on the whole issue of guns. I'm not opposed to hunting but take a look at the weapons this alleged killer had they were not hunting weapons. Until we deal with whole question of guns we are going to have more killings like in Montral and Virginia.

I totally support the CBC on how they reported the tragedy in Virginia

I just learned online that you folks at CBC had declined to air 'the NBC video'. excellent decision! For same the reasons as in the tag-line of your column, I only wish my local networks had agreed. on the 'tree-falls-in-
the-forest' theory ( i.e. who can say for sure that he would have actually done this if he didn't think the video would have an audience?), why risk encouraging future such acts by presenting 'the video manifesto' as a viable option to anyone?

Some of you think Cho did this to be famous, get on television. Sorry, he was too far gone to be thinking of personal glory. He wanted to punish, take revenge on the ‘you’ who created him and made him do this. Question is, will we ever know who the ‘you’ is? Is it all of us, the collective ‘you’, is it only those at VT, is it a relative or loved one who ‘did this to me’ or an imaginary friend?

It's unfortunate that a young dissident thought that the only means to cope with being different than the society around him was to kill as many of them as possible, and then himself. Why did he do it? What was his motive? What was he trying to achieve?
Coming from somebody who CAN'T WAIT for the revolution to begin, I was kind of hoping that this young man left (at least) a manifesto that speaks eloquently about the issues of society that caused him to plunge off the deep end.
Maybe, just maybe, he could have left something that all of us could use to look at our society and use to discuss why it is that people want to kill our children. He was an English Major! Are you telling me he left nothing worth evaluation in that manifesto that would help us understand why he did it?
Hey! CBC, I want to read that manifesto! I can't believe that it can be reduced to ramblings of hating the rich. It's been generalized to convey no message, according to the media. I don't believe it. I won't believe it, until i see it (all of it) for myself. Let's get past arguing about gun-laws, and how well the media is handling this 'tragedy', and start discussing how to turn around our brutally destructive society.......cause it's gonna take A LOT of work.

jafo

Thank you for laying out clearly CBC's policy of focusing on victims and not their killers. I commend the CBC for this.

How many of us can recall the names of the women who lost their lives in the Ecole Polytechnique shootings? And yet, sadly, most of us know the killer's name.

In previous school rampages, I felt that the media were complicit in helping the killer achieve his goal of notoriety beyond the grave.

It's about time media woke up to this fact. I was saddened and sickened by NBC's decision to air the tapes made by the Virginia Tech killer. I just don't buy the tired phrase "we have a responsibility to report the truth to our viewers." This formula almost guarantees that the next madman will commit a copycat rampage in order to gain an audience of millions. The truth is that this killer was deranged, and the media has no responsibility nor right to give a voice to his hatred and madness.

I am a proud graduate of Dawson College, and we were all shaken by the events of last fall. But I was particularly disgusted when the Montreal Gazette devoted a multi-page spread to the shooter and his family.

In response to Ms. Vaughan's comments, I disagree with her. Choosing not to air the tapes is certainly a form of censorship, but television and radio stations do this constantly. This very comment forum is undoubtedly edited for language and content, just as news footage is gathered and then cut down for content. TV stations decide when it is appropriate to air programs with sexual/violent content etc. These editorial decisions are constantly being made, and it is a question of where to draw the line.

Reporting on the content of the tape rather than showing it still allows the public to know the facts, without giving a 'press conference' to a madman. Why on earth do we need to hear his voice?

Mr. Burman,
From the answers you’ve received on your topic, we can spot the deference between the Canadians and the Americans. We are not the same and we should continue in our way.

What I find unusual in this debate is that no-one seems to have noticed the oddly anachronistic behaviour exhibited by the baddie in sending all his stuff to NBC. My God! Who watches NBC these days? If you want your message to get out, post it somewhere on the web. As to CBC coverage, well, it has not been so bad, but whether such a trivial incident should be covered to any great extent at all, thereby excluding other items, is to me an interesting question with respect to broadcast media. Perhaps a simple "another 'x' dead in US school shooting" tells us all we need to know on, for instance, the National; further details available at this site.

I sympathise with your problem, to show or not to show this guy's video &c. Tough call. I think you have probably got it right, insofar as the incident is worth mention.

Cheers,
dba

I wholeheartedly support the CBC's decision not to air this stuff. Kudos to Burman and whoever else helped take this prinicipled stand.

Sadly, most media are aiding and abbetting this social ill of attention-seeking school killings because it sells papers and gets big lowest-common-denominator viewer ratings.

In order to solve this tragic trend, we need to take another look at effective gun control AND another look at how we and the media tend to give too much attention to perpetrators of these sick stunts.

Mass media do not merely reflect society. They are also participants. CBC's decision not to show the killer's video is an example of responsible participation in our society. Helping the killer achieve additional morbid celebrity was a mistake on the part of those who broadcast the video.

The killer’s press kit is available to those who want it, for better or worse. Editor Burman’s decision is a credit to the CBC and to all Canadians. I hope the world, particularly the US, takes note of how a civilized nation should deal with these tragedies.

Thank you CBC for putting morality before cheap ratings!

This is big news worthy junk, yea im sad for the people that lost their lives for just tryin to ge an education but thats as far as I go, I do not care about the killer and I do not want to get inside the kilelrs mind because we can't he is dead. Thats life people die, its a sad how it happened but you can't stop it from happening. I hate watching American News because they milk this crap for ages, I am happy to hear that the CBC was not going to air the videos because what good do they do? RIP VT students and go away media.

Good on you, Tony Burman. You are a credit to the profession of journalism. Too bad there are not more like you.

I absolutely agree with your decision not to air the killer's video manifesto. Why should a demented psychotic deserve a national platform for his rantings? I'm glad to see that at least CBC in this country takes seriously its mandate to deliver news, rather than give into the mistaken belief that anything goes in the race for ratings.

Thank you for being responsible & not showing the Video footage from this Mentally ill person. NBC decision to air this 'Killer Promo" is not only a insult to the Families of the slain peple, but "Grandizing" this tradegy is giving the Killer a forum to rationalize this Act. A Copycat senario is also possible. Shame on NBC, they have reduced Journalism to tabloid status, pathetic!!

Far too many people are quite happy to close their eyes to the unpleasant realities - or worse, to have their eyes (and everyone else's) closed for them by news nannies like Tony Burman.

The old dodge about "copycat" crimes is completely phony. Not only can it be used to justify suppressing any news story that involves violence, there is no reason to believe that any copycats out there will be prevented or deterred from committing crimes by the CBC's suppression of this video.

Most people, if they are honest, will admit that when the shooting first took place, they wondered what could have motivated such a horrible crime. When events of this kind occur, society has a real interest in finding to out why, so it can try to prevent a reoccurrence. The news media, as they usually do after such events, set out to find out who this Cho person was, what his backgound was, what kind of student he was, and what motivated him to commit this crime. They only succeeded in finding sketchy answers to these questions until suddenly Cho's testamentary video, letter, and photographs landed on the desk of an NBC news editor.

Now suddenly people expect the media to suppress this information. If the same information had been painstakingly compiled over the course of several months by intrepid investigative journalists, they would be given Pulitzers. But because it came ready-made and dropped into the lap of the media, somehow they are expected to suppress it.

If Cho's murderous rage was motivated by revenge for legitimate grievances, then shouldn't we want to consider doing something about them? On the other hand, if he had no rational reason to do what he did, don't we want to ask some pointed questions about how deranged sociopaths can walk freely among us without anybody being able to do anything about it? Either way, seeing the video and reading Cho's 1,800-word letter (neither of which I have done, BTW) could possibly help us answer these questions.

Isn't this tragedy bad enough why does the CBC have to script it with "Will it be the grandfatherly face of Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu? ...." What in God's name does this incident have to do with the Holocaust. CBC, you are simply sick and very tasteless, and utterly disrespectful!

The decision to broadcast Cho's PR video was beyond poor taste - in my opinion, it was criminal. I wish that the people who allowed this breach of ethics could be charged with reckless endangerment. I'm obviously no legal expert, but there is certainly enough evidence of the contagion or "copycat" effect to present a very strong argument.

This was Cho's call to arms. Thanks for not taking the bait.

I'm grateful. I regularly turn the volume down at the long dash of the national research council time signal because there's just too damned much violence on this planet that I would like at least a few years more to figure out how to explain before my (very young) child is exposed to any of it. CBC's decision helpfully turns down the volume on the frenzy. I hope that it will allow us a bit of space and time instead to reflect on all the intersecting factors, psychological, social, cultural, and legal, that we can all clearly see at work in this tragedy. Questions about mental illness AND weak gun control laws AND the widespread allure of instant notoriety in our media culture arise now with equal urgency. Why did this sick young man know exactly how to put together a media package, and how and why was he able to carry it out in the midst of actually shooting people to death? How powerful is the allure of fame, the idea that it can be instantly achieved, and how much more powerful is that allure in the mind of someone psychotic? Someone who, despite access to higher education in a creative field where he could express himself through the written word, coldly sees violence as the quickest route to power?

Those who criticize the anti-war commentaries on this discussion
need to understand, too, that we are compelled to make the links between acts - and representations- of violence, whether by a murderous individual or a murderous regime, because the principle is the same: we must prevent loss of life, and at times like these, we must search out every possible means. That young man didn't value the lives of others, nor did he feel his own was worth living. He didn't get that way all by himself.

As a teacher, I broached the subject of the media's role regarding school shootings such as this tragedy with my high school students. The overwhelming consensus was that by broadcasting the deranged ramblings of a killer, the media was not performing its 5th Estate duty. Several students mentioned that, by broadcasting exactly what the killer wanted them to, the media essentially glamorized him. Well done to CBC for upholding journalistic ethics, and not succumbing to bloody infotainment.

After patting yourself on the back on the swell job you did in getting the coverage "just right". Not too much, not too little, but juuuust right, you couldn't resist taking a swipe at the second amendment right to bear arms.

Thank you for giving Canadians more than one option when looking for coverage of this news story.

Step aside, Tony Burman.
You no longer have any business interfering with the news.
You obviously no longer have the stomach for real news.
I've read your piece and your excuse, and it reveals a person who over-dramatizes and wants to prevent me from getting all the facts.

You have a duty to provide information.
You may want to romanticize your role as someone who cleverly and politically and morally slants a news story to emphasize one aspect, but you are not empowered to do that at the cost of censoring or delaying the news.
And why this lame attempt at playing dumb?
The honest thing to do was to announce that the "offensive" (to you) material was reliably and readily available elsewhere, and if it wasn't to at least broadcast it at 3 am for those who want to tape it, away from younger viewers.
If yours was the only game in town, then I would have to start another news outlet that wasn't afraid of reality.

That copycat excuse, and the way you present it, is disgusting and cruel.
How dare you play on people's fears for their children?
Have you none of your own?
And you don't want to broadcast material that may be copied for another crime?
Have you lost your mind?

I can at least be thankful you're not in charge of something more significant in this world.

The decision to air the photos and tape was NBC; once aired they became public domain and available for all to see.

For the CBC not to rebroadcast them could be seen as a noble act but falls flat from a Crown Corporation with a rather blighted history regarding its balance and judgment.

At a time when the Broadcasting Act is up for renewal, the CBC has been quietly working at marketing itself, on air and in its web site, alluding to some unsubstantiated belief in their own credibility.

The decision not to broadcast has been used, rather cynically, to create a marketable image of the CBC that does not reflect its editorial track record.

The CBC, by promoting its self-perceived act of nobility, is guilty of the actions it is condemning, for it too has joined the frenzy cashing in on the tragic events in Virginia.

The CBC did not say we are perfect! Or we did not make any mistake in the past!
Is it wrong if they want to change the direction? Or, it is wrong if they want to be the leaders?

All of these other networks will have blood on their hands the next time someone goes on a shooting spree, at least according to Burman.
Everyone but the CBC.
Here is his cruel and disgusting prediction:
I had this awful and sad feeling that there were parents watching these excerpts on NBC who were unaware they they will lose their children in some future copycat killing triggered by these broadcasts.
And this is the man who controls your news.

I am demanding that he back up this outrageous claim with credible evidence that justifies his call for a new censorship in journalism and reporting.

While I do commend the CBC for their decision, they still needed to provide information. Its a conflicting balance, I know, but there are lessons that can be learned from this.

From other news sites, I have learned the failings of the family, of FORMER classmates (who theorized he was going to snap and do something), of the Virginia court system failing the public, of the attempts by the faculty to reach out to this troubled individual. That is, other news sites.

This information, while not glorifying the killings in any way, are in fact helpful to the public and, CBC dropped the ball. While trying not to focus on the killer, from what I can discern (I checked infrequently, I was checking for more information from other sources that could fill some holes in my understanding of the story), CBC was either behind or not reporting in depth on these elements.

Now, the videos, I could care less - I consider news groups like smoking restaurants, the non-smokers always had the choice NOT to go to the smoking restaurants, such as it is with those who choose not to view the videos - the CBC had a valid reason and made a decision based on that. People complain about the CBC censoring their reports - I've noted a few responses about Iraq, but as long as the information is commonly available from other sources, you can choose to supplement your information from the CBC from the other sources.

Back to point, the CBC could have done a better job of reporting on these aspects of the killer. There are serious lessons to be learned: in a lot of cases, the killer was aided by the apathy of the people around him and the bureaucracy of the system. People should be educated about the mentally ill, while being cautious not to cause witchhunts or be fearmongers.

Remember 9/11? Everyone was asking, "Why do they hate us so much? What led these people to do this horrible thing?" Important questions, and much journalistic work has gone into providing answers. Nobody wrung their hands about suppressing information to deter "copycats". Now suppose someone today found a video of Mohammed Atta telling why he was intending to hijack an aircraft and crash it into the WTC. Would we applaud the media for suppressing it? Of course not. We understand the importance of finding out as much as we can about the event and the men behind it.

There is a context to everything. A good news organization can find that context. CBC obviously can't. Tony Burman should lose his job over this bone-headed decision.

NBC's actions appear to be more than a bit cynical. They received word around 4:30 from the State Police that they had finished reviewing the information in the killer's package. NBC didn't go to air then. They waited until 6:30 (and the NBC Nightly News) to maximize the ratings benefit to their flagship product.

It's worth noting that despite the widespread availability of guns in the US, these type shootings were widely unheard of until the 1960's when, not coincidently, the news media began airing images of these tragic events in real or close to real time.

DudleyT

There's nothing cynical about waiting a moment to reach the largest possible audience.
Or about being conscious of revenue and ratings to keep your operation viable.

Your interesting note looks like a headline I saw on THE DRUDGE REPORT, you know, the place where they try to get the news to you as fast as possible and as much of it as possible.
I think it's also interesting to note that many crimes went unreported to the larger population until the invention of the printing press. And many were unheard of until radio came along. And television - don't get me started.
Turns out there were a ton of murders going on that I didn't know about.

I believe the news media have a responsibility to report information they have on events that are of interest to the public. I believe they are doing the public a disservice when they hold back information that that they believe the public does not need. This is a form of censorship. Once this philosophy becomes apparent it is only reasonable for the public to choose to avoid that media company in favour of others that do not censor information.

I believe the news media have a responsibility to report information they have on events that are of interest to the public. I believe they are doing the public a disservice when they hold back information that that they believe the public does not need. This is a form of censorship. Once this philosophy becomes apparent it is only reasonable for the public to choose to avoid that media company in favour of others that do not censor information.

Canada's top television critic John Doyle of the Globe and Mail nails it on the head in his April 23 column. He calls Burman "sanctimonious" and "disingenuous" for promoting what Doyle calls our "culture of avoidance." Nobody says it better than Doyle.

Comparing what had happened in Virginia with 9-11 is fine. But if Mohammad Ata left video clip acting like Rambo or Terminator we are not in need to see it. If Ata left a letter expressing his reasons and thought; it is good to publish it.
That is why I am with releasing the whole letter, and not a part of it, of the killer of Virginia Tech which he left. I do not need to see him in the video clips acting like the Terminator.
Besides, How the NBC released the pictures and the video clips? Did they have permission from the authority? Definitely yes. The authority wanted those particular images to be published! Why they did not release all the materials? Because the authority did not allow that. Here is the censorship is not from the media! It is from the authority. We cannot accuse the media of censorship! The media did not want to be a tool in the hands of the authority by publishing only what the government wanted them to publish, like the NBC did!!! Some of the media did not want to be like the media in the third world.

I applaud CBC's decision not to publish the VA-Tech killer's "press package", as it were. I think it was the most respectful and appropriate decision they could have made.

I can get all the gory details from a hundred different news sources if I desperately want to grant audience to a sociopath. It's hardly censorship as the material is widely available and distributed. Censorship is when material is suppressed. CBC is choosing not to publish when many others have gleefully done so.

It is a bold statement to make by a media corporation and one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

People are arguing about the broadcast of this video. People are debating gun control. Everyone is asking "how can something like this happen?" I've decided to shut of the TV and take my sons fishing. I've turned off the computer and video games and we went to throw around a football and baseball. I figure that's the best thing I can do to prevent them from turning into this guy.
I used to think I want my kids to watch news so they know what is going on in the world. Now I'd rather have them watching hockey on TV or better yet shooting hoops with their dad.

I want to thank the CBC for their decision. We cancelled our paper over this story, tired of the sensationalism that has crept into everything. The CBC was the only media that represented our view.
This is not censorship, it's decency.
No one could possibly claim that we were denied access to any information in this day and age.
p.s. John Doyle is a good writer, but he doesn't 'get it' and never has.

Thank-you to Tony and the CBC for being so "Canadian" in your decision to do the right thing. Canadians have long carried an international reputation for doing the right thing, with integrity and humility, while little glory or even support is given by those around us.

Imagine for a moment if you will, that on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 you saw your spouse and children off on United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston.

Now imagine that you happened to be in front of a TV after American Airlines Flight 11, also out of Boston, plowed into the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:45 a.m.

Then, while you were watching that, and anxiously wondering the worst, at 9:03 a.m. Flight 175 at 500 mph slammed into the south tower; this one captured clearly on tape.

And, because you knew where your family was seated on Flight 175 you could count the windows and ''see'' your loved ones looking out in sheer terror one second before their lives were snuffed out.

And for the next year the TV networks show this murder of your family over and over. And every time you looked at that aircraft window you can ''hear'' your children screaming for you to help them. Over, and over, and over.

That's not just irresponsible and abusive, it's journalistic obscenity!

The next of kin of the Virginia Tech victims must be feeling something similar.
--
Bud Clydesdale
Coquitlam, BC

By all means, focus on remembering the victims, and relegate the killers to the disgraced obscurity that they deserve.

It is very unfortunate that it is easier to remember the single name of the killer, but not the names of at least a few of the victims. Let's not make it any easier by continuing to repeat the killer's name.