As nearly everyone in the US now knows, On April 16, 2007, around 7:15am, Cho Seung-Hui murdered two students in a dormitory on the campus of Virginia Tech. Two hours later, Cho entered Norris Hall and began his now infamous shooting rampage.

What was Cho doing in the two hours between incidents? Initially, experts thought he might have been biding his time, making plans, even hiding from authorities.

In actuality, Cho spent the time assembling and mailing what Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News” termed his “multimedia manifesto.” I believe it was more accurately described by “Wall Street Journal” Opinion columnist Peggy Noonan as the “self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist.” Once Cho’s package had been mailed, he returned to campus where he chained some of Norris Hall’s doors from the inside and began a shooting spree which claimed the lives of an additional 30 students.

Unfortunately, shortly after NBC received the package from Cho, they chose to air some of what he had sent to them, knowing that it meant a guaranteed ratings boost in the highly competitive nightly news market. As expected, NBC Nightly News scored a ratings triumph for that evening with a 7.4 rating/15 share, easily beating ABC and soundly trumping CBS.

Though NBC executives remain unsure as to why the package was mailed to their network, they defend their decision to air Cho’s media. Many question the decision, including Brian Williams who the “New York Times” reports as saying “[t]his was a sick business tonight, going on the air with this.”

Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant said on “Good Morning America” that “If anybody cares about the victims in Blacksburg and if anybody cares about their children, stop showing this video now. Take it off the Internet. This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe.” Welner went on to say that Cho’s rants do nothing to aid in our understanding of the crime and, instead, validate his delusional behavior. Local police and federal investigators reportedly concur with the final portion of Welner’s assessment.

But some studies suggest that perhaps Mr. Welner did not go far enough in describing the negative impact of NBC’s decision. Research regarding a certain “effect” conducted by Harvard University back in the mid-to-late 1920’s, which researchers later dubbed the “Hawthorne Effect,” indicates that the short-term ratings boost NBC News received may translate into a long-term problem for everyone else.

Briefly, the Hawthorne Effect is a phenomenon where behavior is influenced and/or changed following new or increased attention from others. The “others” generally refers to researchers who, in 1924 were trying to find ways to positively affect the performance of factory workers. What the researchers found was that, any scrutiny on their behaviors and/or working environment inevitably led to an increase in the performance of the factory workers.

The initial studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works factory complex ran from 1924 to 1932, but numerous other studies of this phenomenon broadened the definition of the Hawthorne Effect to mean that people’s behavior and performance almost always changes following any new or increased attention.

The implication here is that a group or organization can increase certain behaviors through the increased attention given to any person or even to a particular phenomenon. Based on this research, there can be little doubt that the mainstream media projects a similar Hawthorne-like influence over anything or anyone it chooses to focus upon.
This point was perfectly illustrated during the Oprah Winfrey show on April 18, just two days after the shooting had occurred on the Virginia Tech campus. At one point during the show, Oprah spoke with guests Darrell and Craig Scott, Father and brother of Rachel Scott, the girl who was one of the first to be gunned down at Columbine High almost eight years ago. Darrell and Craig have spent the past eight years traveling to different schools to speak with students in the hope of preventing future shootings.

During their time on Oprah, both men were emphasizing the choices that are made both by societies and news organizations. Craig commented that his big concern is “the attention and focus that’s put on the shooter. ‘It’s the most bloody, the biggest, the record…’ and records can be broken. And I have found students that actually idolize the two shooters at Columbine.”

Ironically, shortly after Oprah, NBC announced it had received Cho’s package. That same evening, NBC chose to do exactly as Darrell and Craig Scott advised against; they placed all — or almost all — of their attention on the shooter.

In their subsequent reports, NBC noted at least two references to Columbine on the part of Cho, who referred to them at one point as “martyrs.” Unfortunately, NBC’s decision to focus on Cho, and to publish his “manifesto” will no doubt make him a martyr to other disturbed individuals who will, no doubt, try to “break his record.”

In fact, the Hawthorne Effect dictates that the media’s focus on the negative behaviors exhibited by Cho and other mass murderers will almost certainly encourage those same behaviors in others. Mass media as a whole generally tends to focus more on the negative and, in this way, may actually be encouraging more negative behaviors. This is good for business perhaps, but bad for society.

Based on what we know, then, regarding positive and negative behaviors and our ability to influence those behaviors, it is possible that NBC’s decision will help fuel the fire of the next murder spree. Jack Dunphy, National Review columnist and former police officer, called NBC’s decision “mercenary,” underscoring the fact that airing Cho’s tapes, writings, and photos gives him “in death that which was denied him in life: attention, power, and even sympathy.”

Dunphy goes on to express his belief that, “in America today one need not read them to know there are websites where even now can be found expressions of sympathy for a man whose 32 victims have yet to be buried.” Steve Flaherty, Virginia’s police superintendent, also expressed his disappointment that Cho’s images were broadcast. “I’m sorry that you all were exposed to these images,” he was quoted as saying.

So, if we know with such a high degree of certainty that the media in general has the formidable ability to influence behavior positively or negatively, what then does this say of their responsibility?

All speculation aside regarding the media’s solemn duties to society, I do think it is interesting to note that Cho Seung-Hui, one undeniably troubled young man, was able to manipulate so much of the mainstream media establishment, thus achieving a level of fame that he otherwise would never have expected to gain. Said another way; how many out there know the names of even a single one of Cho’s 32 victims, or any of the names of survivors who managed to escape his killing spree for that matter?
Mention the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many would likely know that these are the names of the two boys who gunned down their fellow students at Columbine High. But if the name of Rachel Joy Scott were to be mentioned to those same individuals, would anyone know of this young lady’s heroic example? Do you?

Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be “no.” And now we know how truly serious our problem has become.

The innocent and the brave victims of Columbine and now Virginia Tech are quickly forgotten, or were never known in the first place. Meanwhile the worst elements of our society, and their worst actions, are elevated.

The upshot of the relevant research on human behavior is this; to focus on depravity is not only to raise awareness of it, but also to create more instances of it in the future. A negative pattern of increasing negativity. Good for the media business and bad for society.

Is global warming a real phenomenon? It is virtually a certainty.

We know, for example, that General Washington and his troops at Valley Forge suffered terribly from the last stages of what is commonly called “The Little Ice Age.” This was an age of cooling that occurred between the 13th and 17th centuries and was largely responsible for the disappearance of Nordic culture and civilization in Greenland, if memory serves.

Since that period, we have seen a gradual trend upwards in global temperatures. Today, the consensus is almost universal that we are seeing a warming trend. Less of a consensus, however, is what impact humanity is having on that trend and what part CO2 (carbon dioxide) in this trend. Much of the global warming hysterics currently talks about a rise in CO2 leading to a rise in temps, but historic trends show exactly the opposite phenomenon. That is, we see a rise in temperature then a rise in CO2. If this is the case, it seriously undermines much of the doom criers say of human impact on global climate.

By far, one of the most intelligent and succint rebuttals to Al Gore’s climate horror flick, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a video that I have linked to below for your viewing pleasure. Take a look and tell me what you think:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017380.php

Thanks to Power Line Blog for posting the video.

Mediabistro.com posted the following snippet to their site yesterday:

The Garden Room was the hotbed of activity with an estrogen-fueled, invitation-only lunch hosted by Peggy Siegal for Arianna Huffington, with a head-spinning cross-section of media’s most powerful women. Joan Rivers summed up the afternoon thusly: “You’re better off out here! That was a roomful of bitches in there!”

Now, obviously Joan Rivers was trying to be funny. But is it really funny to call a prominent gathering of women from the media “a roomful of bitches”? What if a radio shock jock had said the same thing? Lets say Imus comes back after his two week suspension and utters such a phrase?

It would be lights out on his career for sure.

There would be outrage again and important people everywhere, especially politicians, piling on to condemn such a joke. Joan Rivers would tell us how she was “scarred for life,” by the remark and we would watch yet another shock jock’s career begin its death spiral.

What I’ve learned over the years, and especially over the past couple of days with this whole Imus flap, is that there’s a complicated heirarchy of privilege when it comes to the way people in this country define “free speech.” As a white conservative male, I reside on the lowest rung of the heirarchy, meaning, the rules for me are far more stringent than for anyone else.

Now, I understand there’s some reason for this given the history of this country and rights which were denied to women and some minorities for significant periods of time. I just don’t understand, though, how it is okay for women to demean themselves and for minorities to demean themselves ever. Why should it be okay for anyone to use race or gender slurs ever to insult someone else?

Comments made by Snoop Dogg underscore the stilted thinking when it comes to who in our society is allowed to demean whom when he said, “we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls… I will not let them mutha—–as say we in the same league as him.”

Snoop Dogg sounds more outraged that someone should compare his song lyrics and public statements (which are virtually identical if not worse) to an “old-ass” white guy who uses slang invented by the “gangsta rap” culture. I think the translation here is this:

What is free speech for me is not free speech for thee.

Do you disagree? Tell me how I’m wrong.

Don Imus’ situation seems to have gone from bad to worse. I can’t say that I’m sad as I’ve always thought the guy was an old crank who spent most of his time on the air mumbling one complaint after another.

At the same time, all that Imus did was repeat almost verbatim the kind of talk used every day on radios across the country. Rather than go into detail myself, I will give you a bit of a quote from a recent column by the very talented Ms. Michelle Malkin and direct you to her site for the full article.

Here is what Michelle has had to say on the topic:

[L]et’s take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets? Have you seen the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart this week?

The number one rap track is by a new sensation who goes by the name of “Mims.”

The “song” is “This Is Why I’m Hot.” It has topped the charts for the last 15 weeks. Here’s a taste of the lyrics that young men and women are cranking up in their cars:

This is why I’m hot
Catch me on the block
Every other day
Another bitch another drop
16 bars, 24 pop
44 songs, nigga gimme what you got…

… We into big spinners
See my pimping never dragged
Find me wit’ different women that you niggas never had
For those who say they know me know I’m focused on ma cream
Player you come between you’d better focus on the beam
I keep it so mean the way you see me lean
And when I say I’m hot my nigga dis is what I mean

For the full article, go here. Enjoy!

UPDATE:

Newsbusters.org reports the details of an MTV interview with Snoop Dog regarding the Imus controversy and the comparison that some like Michelle Malkin are making between Imus and rap stars like him.  Here is Snoop Dog’s revealing (and shocking) statement:

“It’s a completely different scenario,” said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. “[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—–as say we in the same league as him.”

In other words, if you don’t go to college and you are a black woman, it’s okay to call you the most derogatory of names, to classify you in the worse possible way, and to, basically, classify you as a piece of meat.  I thought we were supposed to be an enlightened society?

An amusing story from the past couple of days was a story linked to on the Drudge Report with Elizabeth Edwards badmouthing her neighbor calling him a “rabid, rabid Republican.” Apparently, after building a $6 million dollar, 29,000 square foot estate across the street from Monty Johnson, the Edwards’ decided that a man who has lived in the same place for most of his life does not meet their standards.

I guess the Edwards just don’t like that “other America” as much as we were led to believe. They called his property “slummy” and characterized him as a “rabid, rabid Republican” for having a “Go Guliani 2008″ sign on his property and for, at times, carrying a gun.

This seems to be a tiny issue but, trust me, you can stick Edwards with a fork. He’s done.