2006-2007 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
virginia
shooting

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2007/13: Did the United States media outlets treat the Virginia Tech massacre appropriately?<BR>

2007/13: Did the United States media outlets treat the Virginia Tech massacre appropriately?


What they said ...
'You know, all these networks are in the business of making money, that's what they really put first, and this video makes money'
Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University

'If a tape or letter is newsworthy, then the public ought to be exposed to it, even if there is the downside of giving bad guys some publicity'
Jerry Ceppos, fellow in media ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University

The issue at a glance
On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year-old student at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, shot and killed 32 other students and faculty members before committing suicide. During the rampage he also wounded many others. The attacks occurred in two parts. Cho first shot and killed two people and then about two hours later killed another 30 people.
In the interval between the two attacks Cho posted what has been termed a 'multimedia manifesto' to the United States news channel, NBC. The package included a lengthy written statement, photographs and video footage of Cho holding guns and other weapons.
The shootings have provoked a number of controversies. The adequacy of the University's response has been queried. The shootings have also reinvigorated that United States gun laws debate as Cho was able to buy weapons despite the fact that he had previously been declared mentally unstable. Finally, the media's treatment of the shootings has been roundly criticised, both because their coverage has been condemned as insensitive and intrusive and because they then aired extensively excerpts from the media package Cho sent to NBC.

Background
Sueng-Hui Cho was a South Korean who had moved to the United States at the age of eight. He was a senior majoring in English at Virginia Tech. In 2005, he had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. At least one professor had asked him to pursue counselling.
The incident, which received international media coverage, sparked intense debate about gun laws, the perpetrator's state of mind, journalism ethics and the responsibility of college administrations, and more.
Within two weeks, Virginia Governor, Tim Kaine, issued an executive order intended to close gaps between federal and state law that had allowed Cho to purchase handguns. Proponents of gun rights suggested that students or faculty might have shot Cho and stopped his rampage if not for Virginia Tech's gun-free 'safe zone' policy; proponents of gun control argued that Cho's easy access to handguns showed the inadequacy of United States gun laws.
The death of 32 victims makes the Virginia Tech massacre the worst incident of its kind in United States' history.

School shootings
'School shooting' is a term popularised in the United States and Canada media to describe gun violence at educational institutions, especially the mass murder of people connected with an institution. A school shooting can be perpetrated by one or more students, expelled students, former students or outsiders. Unlike acts of revenge against specific people, school shootings usually involve multiple intended or actual victims, often randomly targeted.
School shootings receive extensive media coverage but are infrequent. They often result in nationwide changes of schools' policies concerning discipline and security.
A list of well-known school shootings follows:
University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
Avivim school bus massacre - Avivim, Israel; May 8, 1970
Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
Ma'alot massacre - Ma'alot, Israel; May 15, 1974
California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983
Stockton massacre - Stockton, California, United States; January 17, 1989
cole Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; December 6, 1989
University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
Concordia University massacre -Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; March 30, 1997
Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre - Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; April 28, 1999
Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
Santana High School - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; April 26, 2002
Monash University shooting - Melbourne, Australia; October 21, 2002
Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
Southwood Middle School tragedy, Miami, Florida; February 3, 2004
Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; September 13, 2006
Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
Beirut Arab University shooting - Beirut, Lebanon; January 25, 2007
Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting - Toronto, Ontario, Canada; May 23, 2007

Internet information
On April 19, 2007, the international news service, Reuters, published a critical analysis of the media's response to the Virginia Tech shootings. This is followed by 51 readers' responses to the issue. Because Reuters material remains on the Internet for only 30 days, the following link is to a Google cache of the same material.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bQUIrKWOk6oJ:blogs.reuters.com/2007/04/19/virginia-tech-and-social-media-some-questions-for-newsrooms/+%22questions+for+newsrooms%22+%2Bvirginia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

On April 20, 2007, an article by Bronwen Maddox was published in The Times. It was titled, 'Why NBC was right to show those demented ramblings'. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1680113.ece

On April 20, 2007, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a media release titled, 'APA Urges Media to Stop Airing Graphic Cho Materials'. The media release warns that extensive exposure of such material can prompt vulnerable and unstable individuals to commit suicide and 'copycat' murders. The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/07-25OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf

On April 22, 2007, the ABC's Kim Landers, reported on the Virginia Tech massacre and especially on the way it had been covered by the United States and overseas media. A full transcript of Lander's report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2007/s1903174.htm

On April 27, 2007, the University of Minnesota News published an analysis giving arguments for and against the manner in which the media had treated the Virginia Tech shootings. The piece gives the conflicting views of prominent academics studying media ethics. It is titled 'News coverage in the hot seat'. The full text of the analysis can be found at http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/News_coverage_in_the_hot_seat.html

On May 20, 2007, the American Broadcasting Corporation released a report titled, 'Media Backlash at Virginia tech'. The report deals with the growing hostility on the Virginia Tech campus and elsewhere toward the media's coverage of the massacre.
The full text of this report can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/US/VATech/Story?id=3059025&page=1

Arguments opposing the media's treatment of the Virginia massacre
1. Releasing Cho's videotapes could encourage copycat crimes
It has been argued that giving extensive media attention to murderers of any kind, but especially mass killers who murder in easily replicable ways, can have the effect of encouraging other unstable people to behave similarly.
On April 20, 2007, the American Psychiatric Association issued a media release warning the media against giving prominence to Seung-Hui Cho's writings, photographs and videos. The media release stated in part, 'The publicity of the Cho materials not only seems insensitive to the grieving and traumatized families, friends and peers of those murdered and injured, but also seriously jeopardizes the public's safety by potentially inciting "copycat" suicides, homicides and other incidents.'
The same media release further stated, 'Indeed, it is evident to many that the Columbine tragedy was a powerful force in Mr. Cho's writings. The media have an important role to play in limiting the power of such tragedies by choosing not to sensationalize them.'
On April 18, 2007, Lionel Shriver, writing in the British newspaper, The Guardian, had made a similar point. Shriver suggested, 'Why do they [school shootings] happen? If it does not sound too tautological, campus shootings keep happening because they keep happening. Every time one of these stories breaks, every time the pictures flash round the world, it increases the chances that another massacre will follow. In the main, all of these events are copycat crimes. Campus shootings are now a genre, much as, in literature, campus-shooting novels are a genre, one of whose entries I am guilty of writing myself. They are part of the cultural vocabulary, and any disgruntled, despairing or vengeful character - of any age of late, since grown-ups now want in on the act - now has the idea of shooting up a campus firmly lodged in his brain.'

2. Potential suicide victims are encouraged to take their lives when suicidal actions receive substantial media attention
It has been claimed that giving substantial media attention to Seung-Hui Cho, who, after killing other students and lecturers, then killed himself, serves to glorify suicide in the minds of vulnerable young people and so encourage them to take their own lives.
On April 20, 2007, the American Psychiatric Association issued a media release warning the media against giving prominence to Seung-Hui Cho's writings, photographs and videos. The media release stated in part, 'The scientific evidence in this area is clear, the World Health Organization, in its 2000 report "Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals," said: "Glorifying suicide victims as
martyrs and objects of public adulation may suggest to susceptible persons that their society honours suicidal behaviour."'
The same World Health Organisation report also stated, 'The majority of people who
consider suicide are ambivalent. They are not sure that they want to die. One of the many factors that may lead a vulnerable individual to suicide could be publicity about suicides in the media. How the media report on suicide cases can influence other suicides.'
Similarly the United States academic publication, American Behavioural Scientist, stated in an article published in 2003, 'Research continues to demonstrate that vulnerable youth are susceptible to the influence of reports and portrayals of suicide in the mass media.'

3. The reporting on Cho's life and his videotape offerings did little to advance understanding of his actions
Christopher Scanlon, in an opinion piece published in The Age on April 20, 2007, has claimed that most of the details of Cho's life reported on by the media were irrelevant to understanding of his crime.
Scanlon has stated, 'Such facts about Cho have been reported on the flimsy pretext that they allow us to "get inside the mind of a killer". They do nothing of the sort. The reporting of such minutiae of the gunman's life is cheap voyeurism that is completely irrelevant to understanding the horrific events at Virgina Tech.
To illustrate the point, it's a fair bet that Cho also used Microsoft's Windows operating system. Why not report that? The reason, of course, is that it's irrelevant.
Exactly the same can be said for most of the other background facts about the killer's life. Even some of the facts from the crime scene are most likely meaningless. Taken alone, they establish nothing. Taken together, they still amount to nothing. The reason that these titbits of Cho's life and death are reported at all is that they can fit neatly into public stereotypes of a mass killer.'
Scanlon further claims that the videotapes of Cho sent NBC also did nothing to advance an understanding of the crime. Scanlon has stated, 'As one might expect, the footage showed the incoherent ramblings of a disturbed young man. It would be surprising indeed if anyone watching the footage came away with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the killings or the motives of the killer than what is already known.'
It has further been suggested that not only Cho's personal details and videotapes but the entire incident did not warrant the saturation coverage it attracted. Professor Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, has stated, 'I don't think this is that newsworthy an event. I mean, yes it's the most, you know, the greatest massacre ever and so on and so forth, but, you know, in terms of what its actual lessons are for society or how much it really affects people, it's this kind of bizarre, aberrant event, you know, more people are killed every day in car crashes than in something like this.
I mean, I can see abroad people tend to look at it as another example of, you know, American propensity toward violence, but in terms of events that really matter, in terms of policy and politics and government and, you know, systemic problems in society, it's really kind of an outlier.'

4. Cho's videotapes were played because they would attract ratings and money
It has been claimed that the primary reason Cho's videotapes were played is that they would attract viewers and advertising dollars. It has further been suggested that even those networks who complained against NBC use of the material would have behaved no differently had it been sent to them. Further, it has been suggested, that the media's total treatment of the incident was exploitative and intended primarily to attract viewers.
Professor Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, has stated, 'The networks that are forgoing sanctimoniously broadcasting this video are the ones that don't have it in the first place, and I imagine their views would be very different if they had been the ones lucky enough to get the scoop.
You know, all these networks are in the business of making money, that's what they really put first, and this video makes money. So they can try to pander to, in a sanctimonious fashion, to the members of the audience that are sick of it by proclaiming their moral superiority, but I think in a heartbeat they'd switch their position if they had the video themselves.
Now, that said, I do think there's been a lot of maudlin coverage, you know, sort of marinating in the pathos of it all, and in an exploitative, kind of voyeuristic way. But that hasn't been limited to NBC, which has the video, they've all been doing that, and they've all been doing that for the same reason, and that is that it bumps the ratings up and they make money off of it.'

5. The media should have focussed on victims and offering help to the depressed and psychologically disturbed
There are those who have argued that the media should have acted more responsibly in its reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre. It has been claimed that the media's decision to focus on the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, rather than his victims was ultimately inappropriate.
Some critics have claimed that it would have been far more socially responsible and would have eased the grief of families, friends and the Virginia Tech community if the media had done more to pay tribute to the students and faculty members who died in the shooting. Comparisons have been made with the manner in which the media memorialised those killed in the September 11 attacks.
It has been noted, for example, that the media paid far less attention to the commemoration services held at Virginia Tech and to the expression of regret issued by the Cho family. Further, it has been far more difficult to find media outlines of the lives of Cho's victims than it has been to discover facts about the killer's life.

6. The media's coverage of the massacre showed little regard for the families of victims or the community where the killings occurred
The repeated release of Cho's videotaped and written material has been a source of great distress to the families and friends of those whom he killed and to the students and staff of Virginia Tech were terrorised by his actions.
Responding to and protesting against the release of this material, victims' relatives abruptly cancelled television appearances in protest. The police, who saw the material before it was broadcast, later said they were sorry that people who were not used to such images were exposed to them.
The police chief of the State of Virginia, Steve Flaherty, has claimed that the victims' families and the Virginia Tech community had been badly struck not only by tragedy but by the intense media attention surrounding it.
The sheer size of the media presence at Virginia Tech has taxed the college, campus administrators and the broader community. News and television crews have housed themselves in Blacksburg's hotels, making it difficult for those travelling to be with relative and friends to find available space.

Arguments supporting the media's treatment of the Virginia massacre
1. Releasing the Cho videotapes and other material was in the public interest
Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, has strongly defended the network's decision, pointing out that most news organisations had quickly picked up the material.
'The news-value question is long gone,' Mr Capus said. 'Every journalist is united on this. You can tell by their actions.' He referred to the use of the material by virtually every other news organisation in the country.
Major television stations around the world, including Australia, broadcast at least excerpts from the video, as did the websites of news organisations such as News Limited, publisher of The Australian and The Herald Sun among other newspapers, Fairfax Media, publisher of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, and the ABC.
Richard Wald, a former president if NBC news and now Professor of Journalism at Columbia University, has stated, 'If you're going to make a mistake on this kind of work, you should make the mistake in terms of serving the public, of giving the public information that it ought to have ... My tendency would be to publish, to allow people to see what kind of person this was.'
'You have to find that line between serving the public's right to know and the obvious public interest in knowing and understanding as much as we can about this person and how such a thing can happen, and being exploited by his manipulation of you,' said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
'If a tape or letter is newsworthy, then the public ought to be exposed to it, even if there is the downside of giving bad guys some publicity,' Jerry Ceppos, formerly executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News and now a fellow in media ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, has stated.
'I get uncomfortable when the media overthinks issues. In most cases, I'd rather share the information with the public and let them decide,' Ceppos has argued. 'The journalist shouldn't be in the position of playing God and deciding what people need to see and what people don't need to see.'

2. The released material is likely to both allay public fears and increase understanding about the crime
It has been claimed that the released material makes it plain that Seung Hui Cho was an unusually disturbed young man and that his behaviour is probably not in any way representative of what might be expected of other young people.
It has further been suggested that the video shows that Cho's psychological state was extreme and aberrant and that it is probably unreasonable to have expected various individuals who had dealt with Cho to have predicted what he would do and have attempted to prevent it.
Bronwen Maddox writing for The Times on April 20, 2007, has stated, 'Watching just a few minutes of the rambling manifesto of paranoia answers the question the US has asked itself for three days: why did he do it? Cho was clearly mentally ill, not simply a troubled student in a bad patch, or someone who snapped under sudden strain; on its own, that is reassuring.
Nothing was impulsive, from the purchase of the two guns in two months, to the obsessive assembly of pictures and speeches-to-camera in a digital collage. The paranoia, the sexual and religious metaphors, the flailing accusations at rich classmates and Jesus, the conviction that he had a cancer of the mind - these tell us that the quest to "understand what made him do it" is not going to take us far.'
Maddox goes on to suggest that watching Cho's tapes should help viewers understand, 'how different Cho was from his classmates and from the population ... Virginia Tech, and his classmates, might also find it reassuring that his sentiments in the video were so well hidden behind his almost complete silence in daily life, even if they leaked into his literature classes, to general alarm ... this ... shows how hard it is to anticipate other cases, although many now seem to be itching to demand this feat of foresight of poetry teachers and counsellors.'

3. The media was selective in what was released and for how long
After turning over the original documents to federal authorities, NBC News president Steve Capus said he faced a 'tough call' in deciding how much to air, if any, of the Virginia Tech gunman's video and 1800-word letter, which were accompanied by photos of Cho and his guns and bullets.
'We tried to be sensitive to the families involved and to the investigation,' Mr Capus said.
Mr Capus said network journalists debated for hours what they should make public. 'There are some things we haven't shown and words we haven't released that are more appropriate to hold back,' he said. 'Journalists have a responsibility. We're not just here to pass on in direct form raw video and complete documents.'
The network aired portions of the video and the note on NBC Nightly News at 6:30pm. Newsreader Brian Williams told viewers, 'We are sensitive to how all of this will be seen by those affected, and we know we are, in effect, airing the words of a murderer here tonight. So much of it is so profane, so downright gross and incomprehensible. We tried to edit carefully for broadcast tonight.'
By April 19, three days after the shootings, FOX announced it would no longer air clips from the Cho videos, saying on air. A memo sent to staffers from the channel's Senior Vice President John Moody read, 'We believe that 18 hours after they were first broadcast and distributed via the Internet, our news viewers have had the opportunity to see the images and draw their own conclusions about them. We see no reason to continue assaulting the public with these disturbing and demented images.' Also on April 19, NBC and ABC said they would severely restrict their use of the videos, and CBS and CNN said producers would need to get permission from their bosses before running more of the clips.

4. The sensitivities of those affected cannot be allowed to determine what the media will reveal
It has been argued that while the feelings of the families and friends of victims of crime must always be respected, this should not prevent a full and accurate reporting of events. It has been claimed that many newsworthy events are potentially disturbing to some people. If this mean that the news coverage was to be curtailed so as not to run the risk of upsetting those with some connection to the happening this would dramatically curtail the amount and quality of news made available to most people.
Jane Kirtley, professor and director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, has stated, 'The media should always treat victims and families with respect, but victims' families shouldn't have veto power over whether something like this is aired ...Where do we stop in accommodating people who object to this? I say turn off the TV or hit the mute button.'

5. Media coverage is unlikely to be a determining factor in prompting either school massacres or suicides
It has been claimed that the televising of coverage related to either massacres or suicides will not, of itself, cause either of these incidents to occur. Rather, whatever motivates people to commit suicide or kill large numbers of others is far more complex than a desire for publicity. Nor, it is argued, will these actions be performed merely because vulnerable people are made aware that others have performed these acts.
Bronwen Maddox, in an article published in The Times on April 20, 2007, stated, 'The accusation that the NBC broadcasts may provoke copycat attacks - the most serious charge against the network - appears to rest on a notion of severe mental illness as contagious, common and predictable. True, someone who is severely disturbed might want to better Cho's "record" - but that does not mean that if his video were kept off the airwaves that person would not find other provocation.'
A similar point has been made by Jane Kirtley, professor and director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. Professor Kirtley has stated, 'The idea that any one thing like a videotape showing will trigger this behavior is very suspect ... What prompted [Cho] to do this wasn't the Columbine massacre - he was a sick individual. If the media stop reporting on anything that might lead to violent behavior, we couldn't report suicide bombings.'

6. If the mainstream media had not released this material it is likely to have been released on the Internet
It has been claimed that much of the information that was circulated about the Virginia Tech massacre would have been released even without the involvement of the major media outlets.
Traditional outlets acknowledge that current technology enables offensive material to circulate, no matter what they do.
'In the end, it's going to get out there,' said Jay Wallace, executive producer for news at Fox News Channel. 'Even if every newspaper and cable news channel doesn't put it out there, somebody will.'
Andrew Kantor, a technology writer, who covers technology for the Roanoke Times, was assigned to consider the impact of technology on the reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre. He has stated, 'The effect of technology on the incident and especially its aftermath was striking. The Virginia Tech massacre was the first event of its sort to happen well into the age of blogs, Facebook, MySpace, citizen journalism, instant messaging, and all their kin.'
Kantor argues that many of the events that occurred on April 2007 were reported informally before the mainstream media were even aware of what was happening.
Kantor has observed, 'There was ... a distinct group of bloggers that shone during the entire incident: those who were there, in and around Virginia Tech. They showed what the new media really could do.
They were publishing minute-by-minute updates on their own sites or on message boards, telling people what they were hearing. And their first-hand accounts were often the best source of information, especially when confusion reigned.
Will Dunn, an administrator with Tech's Computer Science department, was posting live observations ... as events were unfolding. While the mainstream media was thinking, "There's something going on at Virginia Tech," Dunn and others were doling out the play by play.'
It has also been noted however, that mainstream media, while less quick to report is also likely to be more accurate. Kantor notes that some of the first blogs to report on the identity of the shooter actually got it wrong and named someone who was not involved.
Thus defenders of the conventional media outlets have noted that in releasing Cho's multimedia images and statements they were spreading accurate information - one of the obligations of the media.

Further implications
There are those who have suggested that the manner in which the news media responded to the Virginia Tech massacre may prompt national regulations to either guide or control reportage of such incidents. There appears to be general recognition that a balance should be struck between the public's right to information and the potential for harm that the reporting of mass killings can hold.
It has been argued that there may be popular support for such media regulation as there are many in the public and political sphere's who were disgusted by the media's handling of the Virginia Tech shootings.
However, press freedom is a firmly entrenched popular and legal tradition within the United States, and therefore any attempt to regulate the media in the manner proposed would probably prove politically unsustainable, not least because every branch of the media would be likely to oppose it as censorship. Further, it could be argued that in these days of individualised mass communication via the Internet, attempts to control what is released into the public domain are fairly futile.
What is more likely to happen is that the United States media will learn at least a temporary lesson. Their treatment of the Virginia Tech massacre appears to have brought them up against the limits of popular taste. It is unlikely that were such a tragedy to occur again in the immediate future it would be treated with a similar lack of sensitivity and discretion.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Australian, April 19, page 1, news item by Geoff Elliott, `The lines loaded with evil and hate'
The Age, April 19, page 11, news items, photos incl, `Pain and anger bared in cyberspace'.
Herald-Sun, April 20, pages 10-11, news items and photos under general heading, `Killer posted a package of hate'.
The Australian, April 20, page 11, news item by Geoff Elliott, `Cho's sick multimedia manifesto' .
The Australian, April 20, page 11, analysis by Robert Lusetich, `Silent kid's sick tirade'.
The Age, April 20, page 13, comment by Christopher Scanlon, `The reporting of a horrific event has become a crass spectacle'.
The Age, April 20, page 1, news item by Geoffrey Wright, `Virginia gunman sent final message' .
The Age, April 21, Insight section, page 8, editorial, `Grave new world: a killer and his audience'.
The Age, April 21, page 15, analysis (photos) by Geoffrey Wright and Michael Gawenda, `Furore over killer's TV platform'.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google