Brookfield Basics

In my first post on the Virginia Tech. massacre (see below) I discussed what I believe to be the nature and cause of this incident. I would now like to discuss the aftermath of the massacre, and in particular, how the leaders of our national discourse have chosen to respond.

Some went to the easiest well first, and blamed the Federal Government. In what can only be described as a massive exercise in “hand-washing”, the head of the Virginia Tech. Student counseling center commented on the “inadequate funding for mental health services”. This was his cowardly prescription despite Cho’s long- standing and visibly established pattern of sociopathic behavior, all of which occurred within sight and sound of this gentleman’s office. This was his example of leadership to the young people in his charge.

Yeah – that’s it. More money to federally funded services would surely have stopped Cho!! I don’t think HE even believes that.

Some in Washington life spoke of it in the same sentences as global warming. HUH??!!

But without question, the most sickeningly egregious comment I saw came from member of Congress, who attempted to link Cho’s murderous spree to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. Even after considering who proffered this drivel, I can scarcely believe the sheer contempt of the statement. When faced with the largest mass murder in our nations’ history, this puny politico chose to use it as a vehicle to vent their rage on the Court. It is one of the most wantonly irresponsible comments I have ever heard.

And now we turn to the talking heads – the people who work for the mainstream media. Brian Williams, the polished anchorman for the NBC nightly news, introduced Mr. Cho’s self-made video ravings with the comment, “these can only be described as a multi-media manifesto”.

WHAT??!!

Williams is a highly trained and presumably educated journalist, yet this is the only description he could summon it? A manifesto is a statement of deeply held beliefs or convictions. Mr. Cho’s videos were the disembodied ravings of an evil and deeply disturbed soul. How about we describe it like THAT, Brian? Instead, Cho was presented to us as some kind of troubled guerilla warrior turned vigilante who went on one last wild ride.

The responsible thing to do would have been to suppress the tapes, lest they serve as encouragement to others who inhabit the dark fringes Cho’s world. But then I suppose Mr. Williams and his associates have to consider their self-defined “journalistic responsibilities”.

It is time for us to not only sort through the actions of Sueng-Hui Cho, but to also give serious consideration to what is being served up as fodder for our national discourse on this incident. This is critical because it will go a long way towards shaping our memory of this ordeal, and of shaping policy related responses to it.

In fairness, it is not the job of the people I mention to make sense of this for us or to somehow “make it right”. That is an individual responsibility we all must shoulder for ourselves.

But shaping such events in our national consciousness, and providing a format for them to be seriously addressed is one of the primary responsibilities of those holding high public office. This responsibility is to be equally shared by members of the media.

Is that expecting so much?

I don’t think it is.

And we should tell them so.