NBC Got it Wrong!
Anyone who has raised children or studied psychology understands the concept of positive reinforcement or positive feedback.
Whatever you reward, you get multiplied or continued. Whatever you give consequences for, will get diminished.
NBC decided to air the video of this Monster that was in a human body. It can’t be measured but the above truism says that this monster will be copied because there will be others who see that he got just what he wanted…. air time to be famous and voice his grievances as a “victim.” More evil has been done in the name of victim hood than any other excuse I can think of.
Some will say he was mentally ill and therefore we should feel sorry for him.
It has been well established that all of us have had many painful episodes in our life and we do not react this way. Even Jesus had a very painful life.
Only a person who has no understanding of the moral consequences should be pitied, not the person who has psychological difficulties. In my view he clearly knew he was doing something that was wrong, but as most monsters, he justified it by seeing himself as a victim. And that, many feel, gives them license to do evil to the innocent.
Some will say we should “forgive” him, as Jesus would do. This statement shows the ignorance of those who think they have read and understood the bible, but as the bible says, if you don’t have the proper spirit when you read it, it will not be understood. They will see it as “foolishness.”
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor. 2: 12, 14 “
We are to forgive those who have wronged “us”, but only those who have been wronged by this monster can forgive “him”.
We should be seeing the pictures of the true victims on NBC, those wonderfully innocent 32 school children who were taken in the prime of their life, but instead we see video and pictures of this monster.
Why do they not show a person at a football game that runs on to the field to get “face time?”
Because they really do know that rewarding him with just what he wants will only encourage others to follow in his footsteps.
NBC is not going to feel complicit for any copycat episodes, but they should. Shame on them!
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 3:35 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Yup.
We should not only notice that forgiveness only applies to those who have harmed us, but we should also notice that we should only forgive them if they first "repent."
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. - Luke 17: 3-4
FAR.
I am sorry, but I can't help but fall over in disbelief that a week ago you were railing about free speech and thought control by the media because of Don Imus and the alleged "sensitivity" of Blacks, but now that some White kids are sensitive about somthing, the networks are horrible, oh so horrible.
Puh-leez. You can't suggest that the networks are evil for caving into the "sensitivities" of so-called PC crowd, but then call for censorship because the news might negatively impact a mentally 12-year-old.
If Blacks shouldn't listen to Don Imus, then the families of the Virginia Tech victims shouldn't watch TV. Free choice. Plain and simple.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
ii,
You missed the point.
I believe in free speach, and the responsibility that goes with it.
You can't yell fire in a croweded theater and not be held accountable.
You have the free speech to yell it, but you must be held accountable as well.
I am not even remotely suggesting the networks are evil, only that they should be responsible for not encouraging copycats.
I am not for censureship, that is making a law. I am for self regulating proceedures that recognize the power of the press to be used by the very people they should inform.
You do recognize that NBC "fell for" the very goal this monster wanted them to.
Show the letters of this monster, but put a link on MSNBC for those who would like to see this evil person have his 15 minutes of fame.
Don't want cake and eat it too.
The families of the victims called NBC to tell them that they should not fall for his plan or they would not come on to be interviewed.
We all know that NBC was aware of this lack of responsibility because they said they saw what I am saying and decided the ratings meant more, (they called it the public's right to know...ha, yea, and what new knowledge did the videos reveal?) Only that NBC could be a sucker and stooge for a monster.
P.S. Your point might be valid if I was calling for censorship, but I am no way even close to doing that.
Question: If the press had uncovered some very valuable information about the war, and revealing it would certianally get thousands of our troops killed, should they reveal it? Or should they show responsibility and restraint on their own without being told to?
That is all I am asking of them.
FAR.
Let's get one point straight from the onset. This is not about free speech. Free speech rights arise when government seeks to interfere with the speech of citizens. In this case, the government wasn't involved. Thus, what we are speaking of in reality is a business decision. A decision by corporations as to what will get the most audience traffic to their channels and internet sites. And it worked. So praise the free market and be done with it.
You, of all people, repeatedly say that corporations aren't moral. Why demand that now?
I am not even remotely suggesting the networks are evil, only that they should be responsible for not encouraging copycats.
Why should they? That's not their job. Following that logic, the movie studios shouldn't release Hannibal Lechter movies out there because those might encourage people to eat others. This is the same illogical argument that heavy metal causes kids to commit suicide, rap makes them violent and video games are the cause of all things bad. That's just wrong. Crazies are crazies and nothing we do is going to stop that. They've existed since the beginning of time and I can't understand why people gasp in shock when it happens.
Your hypothetical is straight out of a bad episode of 24. Airing this kid's rants aren't going to get anyone killed and, even if they were, that's the risk of living in a free society.
I am for self regulating proceedures that recognize the power of the press to be used by the very people they should inform.
What does this mean?
You can't yell fire in a croweded theater and not be held accountable.
Bad analogy. You can't yell fire without consequence ONLY if there is no fire, i.e. only if it is untrue. If there is a fire, would you expect the networks not to tell us about the arsonist?
You do recognize that NBC "fell for" the very goal this monster wanted them to.
Geez. This can't be the argument. The kid wanted to be on tv and, therefore, we shouldn't air it. Let's grow up. If we judged newsworthiness by whether the perpetrator wanted to be on tv, then very little crime would ever be reported.
This is the case of a mentally ill kid. I have no idea what set him off or why he was so angry, but it happens. It happened in Columbine, it happened at Virginia Tech and rest assured it will happen again. That's life. Let's all grow up and deal with it.
ii,
"...Following that logic, the movie studios shouldn't release Hannibal Lechter movies..."
The difference is movies are movies not real life. Nobody is going to mail their "DVD of Fame" to the movie studios to become bigger than life.
But then I thought my point was obvious that others will try to copycat him.
Dr. Michael Welner who is a psychiatrist that is experienced in the diagnosis and study of the awful psychosis of rampage killers has just today pretty much agreed with my post.
Here is what he said today.....
"I would liken what NBC did to the release of a toxic cloud. Once you release it, if you continue to release it, it compounds the problem. If you allow it to spread and to be accessible, it compounds the problem in access to it. And so what you have to do once the mistake has been made is to simply shut it off in order to contain fallout. And so the answer to a news organization receiving a package is, I would say well, what would you do if somebody mailed you anthrax? Would you open it because of the media’s right to know? Or would you send it to law enforcement authorities, because they have appropriately skilled people who can handle these things. Well, the answer is fairly obvious. This is exactly what this is. It is a psychological warfare that has societal, catastrophic ramifications of some kind of biological agent or radioactive agent. And responsible individuals should recognize what their skills are, and what their skills aren’t."
While I love the Free Market, I also am not in favor of toxic waste dumping by companies just to make a profit. They need to be self-policing and to be responsible.
You didn't answer my question about releasing information to get ratings and profit when it will, (or even probably will), get thousands of our troops killed?
FAR.
We as a society seem to rush to excuse all murderers as being "mentally ill", which has the effect of saying they are not, or at least are less, accountable and responsible.
Are they?
(Paraphrasing below...)
Frued said if they know the difference between right and wrong, their mental problems are not the thing we should be focusing on, but rather their ability to de-humanize others to enable them to shunt their conscience, all the while still knowing that they were doing wrong.
That is the picture of an Evil person, not a "mentally ill" one.
FAR.
You didn't answer my question about releasing information to get ratings and profit when it will, (or even probably will), get thousands of our troops killed?
Like I said before, hypotheticals like this are borne in the frenetic writers' rooms of television shows. I'm not letting you lead me away from the real issue with this red herring.
This Dr. Welner sounds like a quack. If you buy his logic, then the next step down that slippery slope is to ban horror movies, video games and music that might offend the mentally unstable of society. Irrelevant whether it's real life events vs. fiction. The arguments you're making are the same arguments that have been made before regarding all of the above.
We as a society seem to rush to excuse all murderers as being "mentally ill", which has the effect of saying they are not, or at least are less, accountable and responsible.
I think all people who behave in such destructive, pathological ways are mentally ill. But that in no way excuses them from the consequences of their behavior. It just acknowledges the obvious.
You tend to draw a bright line between good and evil and, while I agree in some instances, I have known people who descended the spiral of mental illness and it's sad. Sure, we've all had it tough in life, but some people are more emotionally fragile than others (just like some people are more physically fragile than others). We're not all identical and we don't handle stresses in the same way.
O.K.,
We need to narrow our focus to insure we are both "on point."
I believe the issue is about "responsibility" and that is the point I am trying to make.
Should the News do the "responsible" thing or not?
I am not arguing for "laws" or any controls, just being responsible.
What would be wrong in NBC showing the papers he sent and then saying that if you "need" to see his DVD it can be found on MSNBC at this URL?
Otherwise if you watch the NBC nightly news you get "Anna Nicole Smith", "Aruba", and this monster.
And anyone else out there will see that if their "loser" existance wants to be famous, just kill 50 people and send their DVD to NBC and they will be famous. Next time the copycat will probably surrender so they can watch their mug on T.V.
Don't get me wrong, I am not for legislation and I do see your point, I just think that my point deserves to not just be dismissed as wrong, but that it just might have merit.
We need to be able to not glorify bad behavior somehow and my way is through "responsible" reactions in the News.
FAR.
P.S.,
The news media has recogized their role in the "Son of Sam" copycats and they are aware of the need to try not to be complicit, but.....
FAR.
I understand your point, I just think it is a slippery slope. "Responsibility" becomes a euphemism for self-censorship. AyRand used to say that when people start demanding sacrifice, you better worry because usually the people making such demands aren't the ones making the sacrifices. The same goes for "responsibility".
Why censor real news when we allow far more twisted things to hit the screens in the name of fiction. Any person who let their kids see or personally watched the movie "Saw" has no business complaining about what's on the news.
I agree with not seeing the stuff like "Saw."
I can't stand any of the "slasher" movies and I have stopped wanting to see "any" horror movies a long time ago. Maybe I am growing up? :)
I don't want any censorship and I think I should just say that I think critisism is all that is needed and I am doing my part. :)
P.S.
Is there something wrong with Skip? He is the strangest guy on the blogosphere in my opinion because you would think that he would comment so as to sway others, but instead he personally attacks everyone and seems to be an equal opportunity hater...Repubs, Dems and especially Libertarians.
How to get no one to listen....Personally attack them!
Weird. :)
FAR.
That guy is definitely an oddball. I don't know what his guy's story is, how he found my blog or why he continually returns. But, I loved your last response to his idiocy on the global warming post.
First I am honored he views me as a Libertarian, because if I must be put in a box, that is the one that I am most honored to be in.
Although I consider myself a "private Libertarian" as opposed to a "public Libertarian."
Basically meaning I am for people being able to do anything in "private" as long as it doesn't harm anyone else...drugs, sodomy, etc.
But I think there should be restrictions on public actions that don't "appear" to do any harm such as two people having sex on the street corner.
After a long discussion you and I usually arrive at an understanding, which is what I like most about people who can really communicate.
I really appreciate you. :)
You make me think!
FAR.
P.S. I loved your link to the post at Lewrockwell about Global Warming.
Thanks. I also appreciate you. We don't always agree on everything, but you debate things intelligently and methodically and that is a rare thing these days. I also respect your approach to religion tremendously. You make it palatable to those of us who don't need ghosts and goblins to scare us into being good.
Post a Comment
<< Home