December 7, 2007
In a radio interview, former NBC newsman Tom Brokaw defended his network's decision to air psychotic, hate-filled video rants made by Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung Hui.At the same time Brokaw termed blogs and video games "cancerous" in relation to the violence issue. Brokaw's comments came during a lengthy interview with talk radio host Hugh Hewitt:
HH: ...NBC ran the Virginia Tech killer tape on the day they obtained it. Steve Capus, Brian Williams made that decision. Did they make the right decision?
TB: Yeah, they did.
HH: Do you not think it’s going to incite other people to try to do the same thing?
TB: No, I don’t. I think… to get back to something we were talking about earlier in general thematic terms, I don’t think we’re doing a very good job about talking about violence in this country, either. You know, Virginia Tech went away. We didn’t have any ongoing dialogue in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence.
It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it’s what they read in blog sites, and what they see in video games. It’s that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous. And I’m a free speech absolutist, but I think that at the same time, we have to have free speech in some kind of a context. And part of that context is a discussion of the possible effects of it.
HH: Would it have been better for NBC to talk to someone outside of NBC before they made that decision?
TB: Oh, we talked… I was not part of the decision, because I was out of town, and I got in here late, and learned what they were going to do, and I thought that they, I thought they handled it very well...
(GP: Hewitt is ready to end the interview, but Brokaw won't let it go)
HH: On that note of disagreement, I want to once again tell people Boom!: Voices Of The 60’s, a wonderful book…
TB: Wait a minute. Why would you disagree with me? You’re… I mean, don’t you want to know, aren’t you a free speech absolutist? Don’t you want to know what’s going on?
HH: Oh, I absolutely do. I just think that to allow someone to manipulate the news that way incentivizes…
TB: But we did it in context. We didn’t put him up there and say this was a great heroic figure.
HH: He won. And in fact…
TB: We showed how dark he was, and what the reality is. And it put a lot of campuses in this country on alert. And it’s changed… one of the things that I agree with the NRA is that if people have mental health records that are out there, people who sell guns should have access to them.
HH: The Times of London noted just a couple of weeks ago after the berserk shooting in, I think it was Norway (GP: Finland, actually), that the pictures the man left of himself were eerily reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooter, and raised the possibility that the NBC decision had incentivized him.
TB: Now that’s their speculation... But I can pick anything that goes on, and say that was a copycat crime of some kind... You’re really indicting a network and saying if there’s some kind of a mass murder, NBC’s going to be responsible...
(GP: ...isn't this what happens to video games?)
HH: Does what appears on television influence people, is what we’re asking, and I think it does, quite decidedly.
TB: I think it’s not just television. What I said earlier is what we ought to be addressing, the whole fabric of the place of violence in our society...
Comments
Yeah. Right.
Mr. Brokaw certainly tried hard to prove how outdated he is, didn't he?
Talk about hypocrisy...
says it all really.
I agree with the interviewer, showing cho is adding validation to his crime, its exactly wat he wanted and should have been avoided.
Am I right in taking this to mean: "I believe in free speech so long as it's restricted"?
Right.
"We showed how dark he was, and what the reality is. And it put a lot of campuses in this country on alert. And it’s changed…"
BULLSHIT
NOTHING has changed on campuses. You might get a text message saying there is a crazy loose on campus, however any amount of planning by the person can make that warning useless.
Colleges are no more alert, they just gave us one more illusion of safety.
And, umm, didn't Cho's diary or video (and the Finnish loon) pretty much say he was copying Columbine for the media attention?
*facedesk*
Yeah. Nice move, brokaw.
I can see why you retired, Mr. Brokaw...
I agree with chris here. Brokaw is a hypocrite.
I agree that airing the videos of Cho was the worst thing that any news outlet can do. It basically immortalized him and his crime. The news should not give the air time to loons and their loonie videos as that does inspire more loons to follow suit. 15 minutes of fame. Yeah right.
@ Cheeselikescereal
He's a great newscaster? He just proved that he is an apathetic hypocrite. Your still going to let him have some form of validity.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Pardon?
Were video games to blame for massacre? - MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/
Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster - CNN http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
FOX Pulls 'Bones' Episode After Tragedy - Fox http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-foxpullsbonesepisode,0,4937407.story
U.S. Gun Laws Draw Heat After Massacre - ABC http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3050071&CMP=OTC-RSSFeed...
Yep. Bloggers are evil... Video Games evil. You're right. "It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them."
No, he's saying it's okay to talk about violence, as long as it's through major media outlets.
He doesn't like the fact that Blogs are doing the news reporting these days, and doing a much better job at it too.
Now then... the problem with free speech set in appropriate context is basically why we are afraid to say anything that can be misconstrued as racial. The moment we limit one type of speech, it sets precedents for dozens of other restrictions til the point of a dictatorship. If you limit video games, you will condemn ourselves as the American race to being afraid to say good day without being shot for talking to someone of a different gender or race, since it may be misconstrued as racial or sexist due to your accent or tone of voice. We sould wind up back in England during King George (before founding America as an independant nation), but with more restrictions. So do not do anything to compromise ourselves and think, as you put it, "...part of the context is a discussion of the possible effects of it". Following this, you condemn us to what i have previously stated.
Yeah, as long as it isn't addressing the incompetence of NBC and their news team who decides to show this crap.
He claims that they showed the dark side of Cho. The Truth is, he preceived Cho as dark, as did others and NBC, and said "we'll show people how dark he is", and showed the world the videos. The only problem is, not everyone preceives what Cho did or his attitude as being "dark". Or even that being "dark" is a "bad" thing.
Evidence? Look at all those individuals who seem to hold the Columbine Massacre as something to be fans of. It doesn't matter if WE find their fanaticism of the event to be rational or irrational. THEY find it rational. THEY find a reason to think it's "cool". THEY find a reason to think it accomplished something "good". THEY find a reason to think the "fame" gained from it is something good.
"I'm going to be famous."
Sound familiar?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I seriously almost choked on the hypocrisy after reading this line.
And what does it mean to say videogames and blogs are cancerous? Do they somehow eat away at your body, killing you painfully and stripping away all of your dignity?
As someone who's watched several family members die from cancer, I think this comparison is completely unfair. I don't see the correlation between a disease that kills people and a game that makes 10 year-old timmy hit someone in the head with a dodgeball.
Are times really changing so quickly that these people seem so outdated and out of touch? Or is everyone just that stupid?
TOTALL HYPOCRITE!!!!!!
We either:
1. Believe that media does affect people regardless of content and should be restricted by parents/ourselves.
2. Believe that media does affect people and should (to some extent) be restricted by the government.
3. Or we want some media to be restricted because we think it's bad and not for others and have the high road to be hypocrites and sleep well at night.
Brokaw is doing just that, but it seems some of the comments here point towards that as well.
So you can pick me apart... I think it's completely irresponsible for news outlets to show videos such as the VT Shooter. Also, I think it's completely irresponsible for R* and T2 to release an ultra-violent videogame without significantly adjusting the content (not rendering mechanism to block such content). Both are very tasteless and in the lesser good for the community. Both are my opinion, but I don't think either should have been restricted from being distributed as-is and with whatever slant each distributor wanted to put on it.
Fangamer
So basically what he is saying is, "These damn kids these day!"
More proof that wisdom does not come with age like a gift, but has to be aquired through effort. Apparently, Mr. Brokaw doesn't want to make the effort, and would rather remain ignorant and stupid.
Sad.
TB: Yeah, they did.
HH: Do you not think it’s going to incite other people to try to do the same thing?"
FINLAND! Now go jump in a river Tom, you're a agenda-pushing hypocrite!
Showing that video absolutely was the wrong decision. How could anyone NOT realize that in validating Cho's explicit desire for posthumous publicity for his act, NBC basically said to all the potential shooters out there "if you're really willing to throw your life away in this manner as long as people know about it, we will provide the vehicle for it"?
It was utterly thoughtless and irresponsible. It's not even like they couldn't talk about it without showing the video; this was NOTHING but a ratings grab. Which I realize is the purpose of the television network, but fucking hell, guys, have some sense of social responsibility.
And then for Brokaw to have the GALL to say that "blogs and video games" are MORE harmful?! That doesn't even make sense! This isn't even "dating" himself, it's showing signs of severe senility or complete, utter, wanton disregard for any kind of personal responsibility in the name of covering his own (and NBC's) ass. Disgusting.
With the recent mall shootings in Nebraska and the killers note saying "Now I'll be famous'. Tom Brokaw has no leg to stand on for the simple reason that they showed the VA Tech shooter. It is beyond belief that Tom Brokaw said what he did given the fact that the VA Tech shooter didn't play video games.
Tom Brokaw is a moron.
"Maybe I’m misunderstanding him, but I think Tom isn’t suggesting video games create violence, I think he’s suggesting that we need to examine the effects of violence in ALL media."
No, no he's not. He's explicitly stating that violence in television (explicitly referencing the goddamn Cho tape) is not harmful, but violence in video games and internet blogs...seriously, internet blogs?!...is "cancerous".
"It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it’s what they read in blog sites, and what they see in video games. It’s that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous."
Where is he even getting this? Everyone in the world who isn't JT realizes that video games had nothing to do with this. He hadn't played Counterstrike in years. His roommates did not observe much in the way of gaming at all, let alone "obsessive" gaming. And blogs? WHAT blog is going to offer publicity that is within a hundred orders of magnitude of what airing that video on national broadcast television did?
No, this was straight up bullshit, banking on the fact that the mainstream audience would be too uninformed to realize it. I refuse to believe that a man who has been a news anchor for as long as he has could be so ignorant himself. It was a willful act on his part.
*Punches lumi*
Feeling angry and murderous yet?
It really is getting popular to blame video games for everything again. As for the blogs... he's just bitter that they're doing a better job than the mass media.
Free speech is a simple yes or no, and Mr. Brokaw just said no.
Worthwhile thoughts to add in to the usual "f*ck off" comments, but I think there needs to be some mention of what exactly it means to say that a creative work "affects" someone. I would argue that video games, like any other creative medium, certain to affect people. When playing a video game, the player isn't detatched from the game if the game's any good. A horror movie that makes us grip the arms of our seats, a theatrical tragedy that brings tears to our eyes, a hilarious book that makes us laugh out loud and get odd looks from people on the bus - they affect us as well. Art affects us, especially good art, but it's a far leap to say that something "affects" us in a way akin to mind control or brainwashing, which many video game opponents would suggest. The effect is more subtle, I'd say, and certainly mitigated by parents, teachers and caregivers drawing a very clear line between fiction and reality, and instilling a sense of how violence is unacceptable in the real world.
Even with the fact that main stream news reporting has lost almost all its credibility, a blog still doesn't come anywhere near what the 10 o'clock news can do.
I'm not even gonna grace his video games statement with a response, since like airing the VT video, it lends some weight to his distorted view of the world.
@Thomas -- I agree, I personally believe that it really is the discretion of parents to make the choice as to allowing their children to "partake" in violent media. The parents' responsibility also is then to deal with any consequences of doing so (restricting or not). It most definitely is not the government's place to do this. I do believe that media can affect people -- and if someone is "predisposed" with a condition that makes that person more susceptible to that kind of influence, that person needs to develop more self-control and self-regulation.
@Steve -- you make some good points. But, I believe what Tom was doing was a backhanded attack on video games still the same.
He knows the influence that Blogs rea having on the way news is delivered and it scares him, I'll admit that too many people take blogs as 'more true than true', and that, in itself can be dangerous, but then, in truth, precisely the same rule applies to TV News.
Basically, he doesn't want anyone defining the world to people who is outside his control.
As for video games, well, no-one likes to think that this generation might be smarter than mine or my parents' generation (despite the fact we always claim that's what we want for our kids) better to make them out as basement-dwelling geeks with no self-control, it helps some poeple deal with the inferiority complexes I think ;)
I think that's a little unfair though. They talked about it, it was the biggest tragedy in Montreal's history so it is a little normal, but to say they would'nt stop talking about it is a bit much. You should notice though that they never talk about the shooter anymore, he's barely mentionned. The media talked about the victims of the tragedy.
Government claims that you all have the right to free speech (in the US)
The moment that free speech becomes available to people via blogs etc, however, the general reaction is 'oh.....shit'.
It seems to me what is really being said is 'You can have any opinion you want, as long as you don't voice it in any way, shape or form.'
just my ignore list with Rush(as in drugs),Brill'o(brillo its the gift that keeps giving),Hennity(as in banny hen), and various other fools who smoke the fumes from their own arse.
-----------------------
Steve
Wow.....reach much? Sorry he is not thinking deeply on this he is thinking only of the bottom line in ratings for his network, also society has always blamed media for its issues, also you can't do much abotu crazy people being crazy without marking and labeling people creating more outcasts and troubles.
The only way that it could be done is if businesses and schools have consolers in place to pull people from work/class/whatever and make sure they are treated, because this is a minor problem in the ocean of humanity none will take the time to create such a system.
next would making the mental health police...........meh.....I said it once I will say it again...theres not much you can do abut crazy people.