O'Reilly Dead Wrong on Cho Manifesto

It gives me no pleasure to take issue with the nation’s #1 cable news personality, but when Bill O’Reilly is wrong, he can be spectacularly wrong. In defending the media’s (including the O’Reilly Factor’s) airing of Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui’s videotaped “manifesto,” O’Reilly demonstrated an intellectual shallowness that was inconsistent with his usually erudite opinions.

O’Reilly would have done better to state the truth behind his decision to air portions of the “manifesto” provided by NBC: he was glad the killer sent the video to NBC rather than Fox, and relieved that NBC decided to air it, thus giving all other networks guilt-free reign to circulate the footage. I am sure the thought that viewers would be fascinated by the depraved ranting and disturbing images, thus leading to even higher ratings for his #1 rated program, never crossed O’Reilly’s mind!

It is difficult to describe O’Reilly’s Twister game-worthy contortions of logic while explaining why he chose to air the “manifesto” footage, so I will allow the following excerpt from his Talking Points to illustrate:

Many Americans believe the media was irresponsible, broadcasting the sick words of the Virginia Tech killer. They say that's what he wanted, that it might lead others to imitate him, that it brings even more pain to the families of the victims.

Now I respect and do not disagree with any of those points. But I ran the tape last night and I'd do it again. Here's why:

Evil must be exposed and Cho was evil. You can see it in his face, hear it in his voice. All of us who saw the tape will never forget it. And it made me and millions of others angry. Once evil is acknowledged, steps can be taken to contain it. And once anger is in the air, policy can change.

No matter how many laws we pass, you're never going to stop evil killers, they'll find a way. But public policy must make it more difficult for evil people. It's a lot harder for terrorists to kill Americans today than it was before 9/11. And that's because new laws and better security have been imposed. . . .

O’Reilly continued by demanding that two steps be taken due to the Cho case. The first, which will turn into a heated national debate over medical record privacy, was that anyone who has ever been deemed by a court as a “danger to himself or others” could never own a gun.

The second demand for action was even more controversial:

Second, any institution or work place that accepts a person for employment or education must have access to FBI records. Virginia Tech didn't tell Cho's roommates that he was considered dangerous, even though the university knew. Can you believe that?! What if you were the parents of his roommates?

Now I predict the Commonwealth of Virginia will have to pay a massive amount in damages, because it didn't protect the students from Cho. So if a videotape of this monster can spur Americans to demand Congress pass new laws to protect the folks, then the videotape accomplishes a positive thing.

His second demand was an apples-oranges comparison. Cho had no criminal history in the United States, thus checking FBI records would have yielded no information for the school or any employer. Additionally, having the ability to query criminal history databases (I don’t think O’Reilly actually meant “access”) maintained by the FBI, known as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), has been available to employers for many years. Many thriving database companies, such as Integrascan or Intelius, offer criminal background checks for a fee, a portion of which is filtered back to the state agencies that maintain those criminal history records. Arrests and court dispositions are public record, and like property records, can be obtained directly from states for a fee. For example, for $23 any citizen can obtain a Florida criminal history. Thus, O’Reilly’s indignant huff that all employers must have the ability to check these records demonstrated that his staff did not research the issue even superficially.

The flawed logic of O’Reilly’s argument here deepens, however, when one considers that medical records, unlike arrest and court records, are NOT public record, and thus cannot be purchased for a nominal fee by citizens. That, most would agree, is a good thing. Would you want your neighbor, or a stalker, or your business competitor to have the ability to pay a database company $30 to gain access to your medical history? Millions of Americans suffer varying degrees of diagnosed mental illness, and a high percentage of these can function in society, marry, raise children, and hold responsible employment with the help of medication. Imagine how that would change if all employers could purchase access to applicant medical records. The discrimination against applicants diagnosed even with treatable and common forms of mental illness, such as manic depression, would be immeasurable. What employer would ever take a chance by hiring an applicant after paying a fee and discovering that psychiatric treatment was listed in the applicant’s medical records?

The information about Cho known by Virginia Tech officials was not public record. It related to his psychological condition and school counseling referral, which under law are governed differently than criminal background information. Both are confidential, and it is unlawful to distribute such information without a subpoena or other form of legal order. Had school officials informed Cho’s roommates that he had been referred to counseling and was dangerous, they would have been violating Cho’s right to privacy in counseling. What student needing counseling would ever seek it if he or she knew that the school might disclose information obtained in confidential counseling to roommates? The integrity of counseling as a profession would be lost forever. This would not exclude administrators and counselors from notifying law enforcement of their concerns, but law enforcement cannot take action on what a person thinks about but hasn’t declared intent to do (sorry, Minority Report fans, there is no PreCrime yet).

The argument that evil must be exposed is questionable at best, but exposing evil can be accomplished without giving evil prime time fame. Evil exposed, more often than not, leads to further, more widespread evil. As I write this post, there have been 12 threats to schools nationwide today, including threats of carnage greater than Virginia Tech in Yuba City, CA, for example. Copycat killers have quite a standard to live up to now that they have seen and heard Cho’s demeanor, ideas, and ultimate success. Thanks to the video, others sharing Cho’s alienation and rage now know what violent cult film Cho mimicked during his slaughter preparations. Expect downloads and purchases of that film to receive a big boost.

O’Reilly wrote that viewing Cho’s video made him angry, and that he hoped it would make all viewers angry at evil. O’Reilly mistakenly believed that this anger would lead to action to eradicate evil. Unfortunately, the anger stirred up by the video has thus far not been directed at the killer or his evil but has instead targeted law enforcement, Virginia Tech administrators, and other innocent people who were deeply impacted by the event but receive no sympathy. Anger leads to blame, not solutions. When experiencing anger, it is conventional wisdom to take a few deep breaths, and calm down before speaking, writing, or taking action.

O’Reilly should have followed that advice and let his anger recede before deciding to air the killer’s video, which did in fact give Cho exactly what he wanted, to live in infamy. O’Reilly made a business decision knowing that NBC would take the brunt of the criticism as the recipient of the video and that the O’Reilly Factor could not be left as the only cable news program NOT broadcasting the warped ranting of a sick man. Fox’s claim to be “Fair and Balanced” seemed disingenuous, as “balance” would have been achieved by not airing the “manifesto” and delineating the reasons why.

NBC cited giving viewers a glimpse into the mind of a killer as the compelling reason for airing Cho’s video, and sadly, O’Reilly parroted that logic under the guise of exposing evil. The truth is another matter. The “manifesto” could have been analyzed by the FBI’s criminal psychologists and profilers, and we would have learned what, if anything could have been done to prevent another such tragedy from occurring. As Spook86 at In From the Cold reminded on Tuesday (“Guns and Schools”), the Secret Service established the National Threat Assessment Center, which specializes in studying school shootings. A review of Cho’s video and a summary of his stated motives by one of these agencies would have sufficed to answer the question of why Cho did what he did, and appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of another such tragedy could have been recommended.

There was no need to hear Cho’s voice, or watch him arming himself, or mimicking scenes from a horribly bloody movie he was obsessed with while he blamed everyone but himself for what he was about to do. That video was sensationalist journalism at its worst, and NBC proved an all too willing co conspirator. The other networks, once the line had been crossed, acted as greedy accomplices, desperate for any portion of the media ratings windfall they could capture from the tragedy.

Cho’s craving for attention was exceeded only by the media’s craving for ratings. O’Reilly proved, at least in this instance, to desire ratings and shock value more than taking the moral high ground out of respect for the victims’ families. He could have scheduled all of them for the interviews they cancelled with NBC had he not wallowed in the mud with the Natural Born Cruelty network. Instead, he intentionally added to the pain of those families and attempted to purge his guilt by insisting that he was serving the greater good. O’Reilly should have selected his own defense of airing the video as his trademark Ridiculous Item of the Day.

3% Approval But Media Back Him

President Bush’s job approval rating, currently reported to be 33%, seriously hampers his ability to unite the American people behind his policies and present the world with the image of a strong U.S. President. Imagine how tenuous his administration’s hold on power would be if his approval rating was only 3%! That embarrassingly low figure would doom any world leader, and one nuclear armed nation in the world is currently led by a man plagued by a 3% approval rating: Israel.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who expects to be roundly criticized in a scathing report by the Winograd Commission for failures in conducting the Lebanon War last summer, is, in boxing terms, on the ropes. The opponent delivering the heaviest blows is Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has now launched a public effort to topple Olmert’s government and trigger new elections. Netanyahu, a regular guest on many American news networks, had spoken previously about his potential interest in a second opportunity as Prime Minister, but that interest became an official movement yesterday during a rally held at Likud party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Olmert is not likely to survive this political challenge to his leadership, particularly in light of nearly universal Israeli dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Lebanon War last year. The Winograd Commission report will include testimony by Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, and other Israeli Defense Forces staff members. The IDF was specifically outraged by Olmert’s last-minute decision to launch a ground offensive in Lebanon only 2 days before a cease fire, already agreed upon, was to take effect. IDF staff had reportedly requested to engage in the ground assault weeks earlier but Olmert declined and delayed until, as the IDF assessment suggests, there was a domestic political motive to appear strong while pulling troops back from Lebanon when the cease fire took effect.

Netanyahu is a popular figure, and in an impressive debater and policy expert, as is evident in his interviews on Fox News or other networks. Netanyahu’s popularity, conservative views on Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and other territories, and Olmert’s apparent failure in the Lebanon War, all work in his favor and point to a high probability that new elections will be forced. Those elections would almost surely result in an encore performance by Netanyahu as Prime Minister

The most alarming aspect of Olmert’s seemingly inevitable demise is his reported effort to make deals with the most liberal leftists in Israel in a last ditch effort to save his sinking administration. Two paragraphs capture the troubling deals Olmert is negotiating. The first from WND:

According to political sources here, Olmert held meetings the past two weeks with leftist political officials, leading intellectuals, prominent leftist groups and leftist media figures. The sources said Olmert told the leftist leaders he is willing to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians, including an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, which borders Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv.

The second paragraph comes from IsraelNationalNews:

Olmert's government has thus far proven stable, despite its decline in popularity. There is some apprehension among Olmert's opponents who maintain that a deal between Olmert and the media may be in the works, in which the media would prop him up in exchange for his adoption of a far left agenda.

That a nation’s media would “prop up” a leader favored by only 3% of voters, simply because he would adopt an agenda that media figures personally desire, is democracy’s worst nightmare. That such things happen, however, is all too real. Israeli’s liberal media may be making some urgent phone calls to CBS and the New York Times in coming weeks seeking advice on how to influence elections through false reporting.

This Gas Is No Laughing Matter

Why is it that young people, with few responsibilities and worries in life, are the population segment most likely to experiment with almost any substance in a search for a “buzz” or “high” that helps them escape from reality? I remember many years ago in my youth witnessing classmates sniffing markers, glue, white-out, paint, wood shop varnish, or sucking helium out of balloons, all in hopes of getting a “buzz.” I never quite understood that behavior, since for me, living life and being young were a buzz unto themselves.

To a degree, scientists and medical researchers had already determined even then that such practices were potentially hazardous to one’s health, but advances in medical knowledge now clearly demonstrate that sniffing or breathing chemical fumes, intentionally or otherwise, causes long-term damage to organs through chronic absence of oxygen, known as hypoxia (also called anoxia). Common sense would suggest that the current generation of youth, with unlimited information at their fingertips through the Internet, would be wiser than previous generations. Not so, according to a Sky News investigative report.

The report, “Killer Gas Still On Sale,” describes a growing phenomenon in Britain, in which young adults at pubs and clubs are buying balloons filled with nitrous oxide, more popularly referred to as “laughing gas,” and inhaling it in hopes of “enhancing” the party experience. Unfortunately, some have indulged themselves to death at such parties, and countless others are building toward similar fates through long term brain and organ damage from hypoxia.

Most chemicals or gasses have legal industrial or commercial use, and nitrous oxide is used by dentists, hospitals, and even whipped cream producers, as the gas is used as a propellant in canned whipped cream. Because of the wide variety of uses, few restrictions on distribution were placed on nitrous oxide by Britain’s lawmakers, who did not foresee that its youth would create a supply and demand market for the gas. It is not illegal for clubs and pubs to possess the gas, nor is it illegal to sell the gas for inhalation. This is a situation Britain should address promptly. In the United States, it is legal to possess nitrous oxide in most states, but many states, including California, have made it a misdemeanor to possess the gas with intent to inhale or selling nitrous with devices or means to facilitate inhalation except for medicinal use. Despite the legal restrictions, the problem of young people acquiring nitrous for inhalation persists.

If you are a youth or young adult seeking a “buzz” from sniffing or inhaling chemicals or gasses, please educate yourself about the dangers of this practice before you do permanent damage. If you are a parent, talk to your child and make sure he or she is not participating in the perilous quest for a “buzz.”