The little ones sit by their tv screen, no thoughts to think, no tears to cry, all sucked dry, down to the very last breath

I actually surprised my wife with this one: the Virginia Tech gunman mailed a series of photos and videotapes to NBS news, so should they, and other news agencies, have shown excerpts on their nightly newscasts/websites, etc.? It's easy to suggest no. The killer was already dead by his own hand, and this gives him a posthumous gift of the recognition he wanted, and could in theory motivate others to similar action. Oddly enough, I find this argument wholly unconvincing. Don't get me wrong, after a traumatic experience it can be brutal seeing repeated images of the killer...but that really is a phenomenon over which has some control. Turn off the TV, avoid the newspaper for a couple days, and stop watching Cable news entirely (actually, that last bit of advice applies for everyone, frankly, regardless of the situation). What worries me, among others, is the media declaring a blackout on things that are on their face newsworthy, to prevent us from having our sensibilities challenged. See the arguments by Atrios:

I'm a bit puzzled by all the conversation about whether NBC and other news outlets should've broadcast Cho's videos. While there can always be debates about what should be front and center, the idea that this kind of thing should be withheld by a Media That Knows Best is rather disturbing. Emphasis and placement is always an issue, which is why if nothing else this stuff can be put on the internets where people can make the effort to take a peek if they wish.

And, no, I didn't have much desire to see any of it, I just reject the idea that our Elite Filters really know what's best for us.

and Kevin Drum:

There's no question that these images and videos are intense; they undoubtedly cause pain to the loved ones of the victims; and they might even help promote copycat behavior — though I suspect this is more urban legend than reality. But like it or not, they're also a key part of helping us understand one of the biggest news stories of the year.

I think this is exactly right. When the media acts like gatekeepers, we are shielded from violent images at the true cost of not understanding their context at all. I would argue that the lack of bloodshed from Iraq shown on tv has led us to ignore the deaths of several hundred thousand innocent civilians, since we never see the true picture of all the suicide bombings and executions that plague that country. We don't even see the true effect on our military, since the media is banned from showing soldiers' coffins and they have dropped the ball utterly on the effects of serious injuries on the troops. Until the recent expose of Walter Reed by the Washington Post, the media was basically happy to pretend that these things just didn't deserve widespread attention, even though Salon pointed out many of these issues years ago.

That said, some discretion is called for. Rather than pimping the Cho videos endlessly, it was probably appropriate to show brief snippets and post the remainder to websites, but in the end, it is up to us to decide what we wish to watch and what we would prefer to avoid, not up to them to censor the news for the sake of the most sensitive individuals.

By the way, what of the argument that we are just provoking copycats? More from Kevin Drum at Political Animal:

Still, does publicizing specific mass murders inspire copycats? I'm not so sure about that. In fact, it might be just the opposite: the massive publicity these events generate makes everybody far more vigilant about the possibility of "disturbed loners" in their midst and might actually reduce the likelihood of copycat sprees. What's more, when all is said and done, most of these killers come across in media accounts as delusional, hopeless losers, not as heroes to emulate.

What we all need to remember is that no matter how brutal this killing was, random killing sprees, including those at schools, are extremely rare. There is not some "wave of killings" taking place at schools, just like there is no wave of kidnapped children, or any of the million other problems blown up to ridiculous proportions by the various news outlets. What there is, rather is much more hyperventilating news sources to which we have access, who are willing to make random isolated events into trends so that we may be scared into watching their programs. VT was a true American tragedy, but also a rare and reasonably random occurrence. Some perspective goes a long way into fitting it into a reasonable narrative, and that requires both access to details about the case, as only the news can provide, but also a reasonable approach, which we can rest assured they most definitely won't provide.

PS: It seems that Rosa Brooks of the LA Times feels similar to me about assuming the tragedies and trauma of others, in that it is overdone in modern society:

Convincing ourselves that we've been vicariously traumatized by the pain of strangers has become a cherished national pastime. Thus, the Washington Post this week accompanied online stories about the shooting with a clickable sidebar, "Where to Find Support" — apparently on the assumption that the mere experience of glancing at articles about the tragedy would be so emotionally devastating that readers would require trained therapists...

Our self-indulgent conviction that we have all been traumatized also operates, ironically, to shut down empathy for other, less media-genic victims. On the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance, Army Sgt. Mario K. De Leon of San Francisco (like the Virginia Tech victims) died of "wounds sustained from enemy small-arms fire"). On Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 172 people in Baghdad. But no one has set up a special MySpace page to commemorate those dead.