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.

Society's Standards, Not Military's, in Decline

It wasn’t enough for John Kerry to insult the intellectual capacity of the soldiers in Iraq. Congressman Marty Meehan, D-MA, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has now added “criminals” to the list of derogatory terms used by Democrats to describe our troops. That is what passes as support for the armed services in the new Congress. Rather than praise the military for giving some who have made mistakes the chance to improve their skills and future employment prospects, Congressman Meehan puts a negative spin to recently published Pentagon recruiting statistics and warns that the military is filled with criminals.

Are military recruiting standards being lowered due to the strain of 5 years of the War on Terror and “mounting casualties”? That is the question raised in an AP story reported by Fox News today titled “US Military Letting in More Recruits With Criminal Records.” According to Defense Department statistics, the number of Army and Marine recruits with criminal records requiring waivers for military service nearly doubled between 2003 and 2006, the AP reports. Congressman Meehan argues that the rise in the number of recruits with criminal records demonstrates a lowering of standards by the armed services that is the direct result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressman Meehan stated:

The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards. By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country.

Do the statistics actually reflect what the Congressman alleges? According to Pentagon statistics, the armed services provided “moral waivers” by service branch as follows:

Army – 12.7% needed waivers in 2003, 20% needed waivers in 2006.
Marines – Slightly less than 50% needed waivers in 2003, slightly more than 50% needed waivers in 2006.
Navy – Less than 18% needed waivers in 2003, 18% needed waivers in 2006.
Air Force – More than 8% needed waivers in 2003, 8% needed waivers in 2006, trending downward.
Overall Average – 20% needed waivers in 2003, 25% needed waivers in 2006.

The Pentagon report divides moral waivers into the following categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses. These categories are intentionally broad because many states differ in what constitutes felonies or misdemeanors.

Congressman Meehan’s “crystal clear” data actually only show a 5% rise in waivers throughout the armed services between 2003 and 2006. 5% does not reflect an incredible strain or a mad rush to throw recruiting standards out in order to meet recruiting quotas. On the contrary, the high percentage for the Marine Corps is not an alarming result of lowering standards; it is caused by the strict Marines' standard drug use policy that requires waivers even for single experience marijuana use.

In defense of the waiver program, the Pentagon issued the following statement:

The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military.

While statistically it may appear the military is lowering recruiting standards, the explanation for the increase in moral waivers is far more attributable to the decades-long decline in national morals than to any cause/effect stemming from the War on Terror. When I was recruited for government service, the entity that recruited me had a zero tolerance policy against drug use of any kind at any time. Those who lied about recreational use in their youth were weeded out in the polygraph stage. The standard behind that policy was: in sensitive government positions involving life and death decisions and actions, anyone who could prove unstable or succumb to physical addictions that involve violating laws should be excluded without exception.

In the intervening years, however, that standard has “evolved” as fewer applicants could state with confidence that they had never used illegal narcotics of any kind. The current standard allows exceptions for recreational use of marijuana, as long as that use was no more than a few years prior to application for employment with this specific government entity. Was the change a result of this entity’s manpower-intensive contribution to the War on Terror? No, it was the result of a shrinking pool of applicants who had never experimented with drugs in their youth.

I view the change in standards as a troubling but not at all surprising trend that is impacting all employers, not merely the US Government or military. Finding recruits who have ethical standards, can successfully pass intensive background investigations, polygraphs, and psychological fitness tests, is becoming more difficult. The parental permissiveness of baby-boomers has spawned more recreational drug experimentation, growing serious criminal behavior among youth, and a moral relativism that has taught young Americans that right and wrong depend entirely on the situation and how you feel about it, not that there are clear differences between right and wrong. All forms of sexual deviance are likewise embraced and displayed as popular entertainment, further obscuring the once accepted values of self-restraint and responsibility. Criminals, once societal pariahs, have become the heroes in our popular entertainment, while our government and military are nearly always portrayed as the true villains. Drug use is portrayed as adventurous, daring, and socially enlightened. Drug lords, smugglers, and dealers, are afforded respect and glory in today’s Hollywood productions. Hollywood attaches no stigma to indulgent or illegal behavior.

One wonders how much effort Congressman Meehan has expended in fighting Hollywood’s culturally suicidal assault on American morals, or how concerned he is that Americans are subjected daily to Hollywood’s disdain and mockery of government and military personnel. If the Congressman worries about sending the wrong message to potential recruits, why not start with the anti-military messages spewing from Hollywood and his own party?

Congressman Meehan’s policy statement on Iraq includes terms he believes show support for our troops: Quagmire; Torture Accountability; Haliburton; Rifts in International Relationships; Failure; and Damaged Credibility. He is far less dedicated to improving military recruiting than he is to casting the military in a poor light in order to discredit the Bush Administration and the Iraq War.

Because generations of Americans have willingly embraced Hollywood’s values and definitions of right and wrong (i.e. there is no difference), fewer Americans are living the lives the government and military once demanded from recruits in preparation for service. The private sector is likewise facing a shortage of applicants with high standards, but unless an employer is a government contractor providing sensitive government support, background checks are shallow and polygraphs are non-existent. Thus the decline in moral standards throughout society would naturally be most visible in government and military, where security clearances and access to weaponry and intelligence reports require far more character than is expected in the private sector.

The military, to its credit and despite the AP report on Pentagon recruiting statistics, gives far more scrutiny to its recruits than the private sector, including the news media, gives to its employee applicants. To attribute the rise in moral waivers for military recruits to the strains of the War on Terror misses the larger cultural context in which recruiting occurs. The military should be applauded for working to recruit the best available representation of American culture, and not criticized because America’s culture is in decline.