The Virginia Tech killer video presents the media with an obvious moral dilemma: it's a huge story, but also risks encouraging others seeking notoriety from mass killings.
As Chris Shaw, Channel Five's senior programme controller, news and current affairs, says in a MediaGuardian comment piece: "This is exactly the kind of instant notoriety sought by the disturbed spree killers, from Dunblane through to Columbine and now Virginia Tech."
He adds:
Fears of copy-cat killings seeking instant cyber celebrity are not unfounded in my opinion.
...This kind of user generated content does present some serious ethical issues for news organisations that choose to rebroadcast the material.
The news value of this stuff was irresistible to NBC despite any qualms about its impact on the survivors and the bereaved, not to mention any future spree killers.
All news organisations in the UK have followed suite and they, like NBC, will all see massive spikes in their internet traffic.
In the end, I don't think news organisations had much choice about showing the material but the implications are quite scary.
Are such ethical concerns irrelevent in the digital media age? Even if mainstream media decides not to distribute such material, isn't it just going to show up on the internet anyway, as with the Saddam execution video?
