Get that murderous psycho off the news!

I've come to expect little better from the television media, so I'm not surprised the news networks have endlessly broadcasted the photos, video and text that killer Cho Seung-Hui sent to NBC Monday just before his final rampage in Norris Hall at Virginia Tech.

But I was EXTREMELY dismayed to see The Denver Post's front page with the killer's creepy photos and ranting quotes enlarged so no reader could possibly miss them. There is no clarification, closure or comfort to be gained by seeing those images and reading his rants. The photos and video don't show Cho as the troubled loner he really was, but rather, as the tough guy he wished he could be.


What kind of message does this send to the families of Cho's victims, and the families of Columbine victims for that matter? It tells them that the killer is calling the shots, and the story is about him, not his victims. Not only did he take the lives of 32 innocent people, he is now been elevated to celebrity status for doing so. When Cho sent those materials to NBC, he wanted to go down in infamy, and the media happily obliged.

So, what's the take home message for all the would-be shooters out there who are angry enough to contemplate taking their own lives? Why go out anonymously when you can blow away 32 people and be immortalized for it in the papers and on the news? As the hometown paper for the families and friends of the Columbine shooting victims, The Denver Post showed no regard for the duty of care the newspaper owes to those sensitive readers.

Of course, the story is incredibly newsworthy and deserves thorough coverage, but for god's sake, direct readers to the website where they can read Cho's letter and see his angry photos, don't put it on the front page. This story should now be about the victims, not their murderer. By printing and broadcasting the killer's photos, videos and texts, the media has inadvertently validated Cho's heinous act and invited other sick and vengeful individuals to do the same. And for a newspaper like The Denver Post that knows for a fact people who have been directly affected by a similar shooting are among its readers, the editorial decision to put Cho on today's front page is incomprehensible.

Devastation at VT haunts Boulder

I wasn't nervous about going to the CU Boulder campus for class today, but I was certainly a bit more on guard after more than thirty people were murdered at Virginia Tech yesterday. Horrible acts often beget more horrible acts. Last September, 16-year-old Emily Keyes was killed at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colo., and days later, a madman killed five people at an Amish school in Pennsylvania.

Knowledge of the tragedy in Virginia added a layer of unease to an already tense day on the Boulder campus. The fanatical anti-abortion folks were out with their mural-sized pictures of bloody and dismembered fetuses in various stages of development. Then there was the student Republican club holding its annual "Affirmative Action Bakesale," which drew a crowd of about 100, sign-wielding counter protesters. The "Bakesale" featured a single, lonely bin of grocery store cookies, which were on sale for different prices depending on the buyers race. The idea is to protest the racial preference practices of affirmative action.

Too add to all this dramatic tension in the crisp air this morning, our professor was pulled from class suddenly because a student in one of her other classes had expressed admiration for the shooter in Blacksburg, Va., and added that he had fantasized about doing something similar. The professor called the police and spent the remainder of our class calling student witnesses and giving a police report. NPR reported that several other universities around the country had similar scares.

What happened yesterday is incomprehensible, even for a society as plagued by gun violence as this one. It's being called the worst shooting in modern U.S. history, and the blogosphere is exploding with posts about the event. The right-wingers say it's proof we need to relax our gun laws; after all, if other students had been armed, the shooter never would have been so "successful" in his rampage. Those on the left say the incident screams for tighter gun regulation, or at least a ban on assault weapons and automatic handguns.

What I don't want to see, but what I fear is inevitable, is an anti-Asian backlash in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. The shooter was a 23-year-old student, originally from South Korea named Seung-Hui Cho. He lived in a dorm; his roommates described him as a stoic, silent loner. Apparently, one of his English professors once tried to warn school officials about his frighteningly dark paper topics, but there wasn't much anyone could do unless he made a threat, they said.

No race or nationality has a monopoly on hate and brutality. The killer's race is pretty insignificant; what's more important is what we can do to make sure this never happens again. But surely, just as Muslim-Americans felt targeted in the wake of Sept. 11 attacks, so will Asian-Americans likely feel scrutinized and blamed for the horrific act of one sick individual.

Now we have our answer

My last post was titled Russia: free and safe? Well, we have a definitive answer today after a weekend of violent state repression of peaceful protests in Russia's two major cities. Russian riot police and soldiers beat and detained hundreds of anti-Kremlin protesters, who staged modest demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Saturday and in St. Petersburg on Sunday.

Thousands of people gathered in Moscow and St. Petersburg for peaceful protest marches meant to express opposition to Putin and his cronies. Unfortunately, Putin struck back in a big way. Fewer than 2,000 protesters in Moscow were met by 9,000 soldiers and police, who prevented the demonstrators from marching to a central square. For 2,000 protesters in St. Petersburg, Putin called on a mere 1,500 police to stop them.

France24 reported that Russian police beat a man who lay motionless on the ground and bloodied the nose of a middle-aged woman.

If this weekend's actions on the part of the Russian authorities do not prove Putin is a tyrannical and anti-democratic, it is hard to imagine what will. I hope democratic nations the world over raise hell diplomatically over the Kremlin's shameless repression of peaceful opposition protesters.

Opposition in Russia is clearly not tolerated. Public criticism of Putin is almost never heard, and the state controls all the TV channels and most of the radio stations. In March 2008 there will be a national election to replace Putin, who is constitutionally term-limited. Despite Putin's brutality and dictatorial qualities, the Russian president remains popular, and whoever Putin endorses as his successor is practically a shoe-in.

Now I wonder what those CWA panelists think of the weekend's events. They were so damn chipper about how free and lovely Russia is; I'm curious if this will change their tune.

Russia: safe and free?

I’m pretty shy; and it’s rare I feel compelled to get up in front of a room of people to ask a question. But yesterday I attended a panel on Russia at the CWA and found myself desperate to challenge one of the panelists. Unfortunately, too many other people were similarly inspired, and I never got the chance. Jennifer Trelewicz didn’t come across as a thoughtful scholar or an objective expert, but more of a Russian nationalist, an emissary straight from the Kremlin hoping to convince us that Russia - contrary to everything we read in the American and Western European media – is really an orderly, free and wholly democratic country.

Trelewicz and her co-panelist, Olessia Smotrova-Taylor, spent their presentations trying to convince a skeptical audience that the Russian system of checks and balances tops that of the U.S. and that there are better laws, more stringent regulation, and that the enormous gap between the rich and the poor in Russia is filling up with a prosperous and contented middle class.

“We feel it is a very free country, a very free place to live,” Trelewicz said.

Her comment rung in my ears, for it seemed to contradict most all the news coming out of Russia recently. It’s none too free for homosexual people who wanted to hold a pride parade in Moscow but were scorned and laughed at by the city’s mayor. It’s also not free for journalists – every one of them who dared to speak the truth about Russia’s involvement in Chechnya has been murdered, most recently Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead in the atrium of her Moscow apartment building last fall. President Vladimir Putin has cracked down on dissent in the broadcast media, causing alarm among defenders of the free press. In order to maintain an aura of democracy, Putin has largely left the print media alone, preferring to focus TV, which is probably more effective in reaching the masses.


Russia probably doesn’t seem like a very free place to people of color either. That country has a real problem with skinheads and anti-Semites who regularly attack immigrants and dark-skinned Russians, whose motto is “Russia for the Russians.” One particularly horrific example occurred in 2003 when over 40 foreign students died in a dormitory fire at a university in Moscow. Although no investigation was ever launched, arson is suspected as the cause of the fire. Before the fatal blaze, black and Asian students had been the subjects of violent racist attacks, perpetrated by skinheads – two of whom were chased out of the dormitory the night before it burned to the ground. And the stringent safety regulations the panelists boasted didn’t seem to help the 63 people who burned to death in their sleep last month when their retirement home in southern Russia caught fire. The 45 women who died in a fire at a hospital in Moscow last December also saw little benefit from the Russian regulations boasted about by Trelewicz.

So, I guess my question is, for whom is Russia free? When I was there for a few weeks on 2005, I found it to be a beautiful and complex nation, but one riddled with corruption (we were shaken down three times by the police), and serious social problems including rampant alcoholism, widespread poverty and a low standard of living for many people. It seemed to me the two panelists I mentioned gave the audience the broad strokes in bright colors, but their comments didn’t reflect the complexity of the Russia I experienced or the social turmoil in that country we read about in the news.

CWA: Corporate-owned Media

I love a panelist not afraid to insult his co-panelist’s employer. In a Tuesday panel entitled FOX in the Henhouse: Corporate-owned Media, that’s exactly what Jurek Martin, of the Financial Times, did when he slammed both the BBC World Service (TV) and CNN International for producing boring and repetitive newscasts that fail to adequately inform viewers about the day’s most important events. James Schiffman, chief copy editor at CNN International, took the criticism in stride, and his employer was quickly defended by the third panelist, Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune.

The panelists lamented the consolidation of corporate-owned media, but all three, and especially the newspaper men, seemed more concerned about the economic pressures being put on the traditional news models. Jurek Martin cited an “appalling lack” of international coverage in American newspapers and fumed over the decision of some large newspapers to scale back, or cut entirely, their foreign news bureaus. James Schiffman agreed, saying that in the era of globalization of economies, cultures and societies, and at a time when America is at war in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for Americans to be informed about world events.

The panelists seemed resigned to the reality of corporate consolidation in media ownership. Yes, yes, it is certainly alarming that a handful of mega-rich corporations own our favorite newspapers and TV channels, decreasing the diversity of viewpoints presented and boxing out dissenting voices. But what can a couple seasoned journalists and a copy editor do about it? The men on the panel seemed less concerned about their news agency’s owner and more concerned about maintaining the objective newsgathering and presentation that they've valued throughout their careers. But how can we retain objectivity when news agencies are limited in what they can cover for fear of offending the corporate bosses? How can the public trust journalists who represent a media company that is ultimately just interested in ratings and the bottom line?

In reference to the growing number of opinionated pundits like Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly with their own shows on news networks like FOX and CNN, Bruce Dold of the Tribune said something I found quite interesting. Dold commented that American might be headed back to a 19th century model of news. Back in those days, there were many newspapers, each with a distinct viewpoint, and it was up to the reader to sift through the opinion and find the fact - if there was any to be found. Once newspapers saw they could do better financially by attracting a broader audience, the concept of objective reporting took root. Dold believes we may be headed back in the direction of a fragmented media with each news outlet pushing its own agenda. The days of objective reporting in the front sections and subjective opinion on the editorial pages may be waning as more news outlets abandon objectivity in favor of advocacy and agenda-setting.

Conference on World Affairs kicks off in Boulder

I suppose the CWA started yesterday, but for me, the conference kicked off this morning. I always look forward to this event, organized by CU each spring. I see it as a nice gesture for a university that all too often cuts corners in its offerings of internationally-focused curricula and major programs.

The first panel discussion I attended was held in the Boulder High School auditorium and was filled, for the most part, with lethargic-looking teens, clutching their Spanish textbooks and squirming under the scrutinizing eye of their teachers, determined to keep the students in line for the duration of the panel.

The title of the presentation was Latin America: Political Forecast. But I found the discussion not to be a prediction for Latin America's political future, but more of an opportunity for scholars to express their pro-North American vision for the region.

First, Vicki Huddleston, former U.S. diplomat, told the crowd that despite the fact that Fidel Castro is still alive, he is no longer in control of Cuba's affairs, and his country is due for political change. Despite what we may read in the alternative press about Cuba's universal health care and education systems, we mustn't believe the country has a free or open system. Is that it? Huddleston's observations were hardly fresh or insightful. The one interesting thing she did say referred to the elevated, nearly mythical status that Che Guevara, and to a lesser extent, Fidel Castro, have assumed in the minds of young people. She cautioned the audience against revering Che or Fidel too much (just as any American government lackey would), but nevertheless acknowledged the importance of these two men in the hearts of millions of people throughout Latin America. Che and Fidel were and are David to the United States' Goliath, and if Fidel lives until January of 2009, he will have outlasted 10 American presidents.

Judith Morrison, of the Inter-American Foundation, spoke about Venezuela and Brazil. She says she is concerned, as anyone who values democratic process should be, about the political situation in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. Chavez has greatly overstepped his constitutional boundaries by declaring himself able to rule by decree, Morrison said. She added that the declining condition of basic infrastructure in Venezuela is unacceptable given the country's oil revenue and high global fuel prices.

On the other hand, Morrison praised Brazil for that country's investment in research, development and infrastructure. Her comments, while much better informed to be sure, sounded a bit like the rhetoric we heard from President Bush on his recent visit to Latin America. Her criticism of Venezuela and praise for Brazil was the line toed by Bush when he met with regional leaders in March.

What Morrison and the other panel members failed to address are the sky-rocketing corn prices in Mexico, which have hit the poorest people the hardest. Is is really a good idea to use a staple food crop for fuel when poor people who depend on corn for sustenance can't afford to eat as a result? (Think Bush's conversations with Brazil's government about the production of corn for ethanol).

And in regard to Venezuela, I'm tired of all the blind Chavez-bashing that doesn't even consider the changes he has implemented to benefit the poorest of the Venezuelan people. I am not trying to defend Chavez in his quest for ultra-concentrated power, but I would like to point out that millions of Venezuelans have benefited from health care, education and other social programs Chavez has implemented as a part of his Bolivarian Revolution.

Judith Morrison did mention, and I fully agree with her, that the U.S. has neglected Latin America, and as a result, we are losing status and credibility among not only the region's leaders, but among the people as well. What happens in Latin America affects us in the United States and vice versa. We ignore the region to our peril, as we have seen in recent years with the sharp increase in the number of undocumented immigrants unsafely crossing the U.S. border in search of work. As one of the panelists stated, we must make Latin American countries economically viable, for that is the only way to help the Latin American people and ensure U.S. national security at our southern border.

Googlezon video

This is a cool video hypothesizing about the future of news and the Internet. The predictions are more than a little disconcerting for journalists.

We're ready already

When I read about the Ferry Building on Ellis Island that recently opened to the public after being closed in 1954, I was reminded of our nation’s pressing need to enact another comprehensive immigration reform.

Ellis Island is the centerpiece of U.S. immigration history, and while parts of the island were opened to the public in 1990, the rest has been off limits to the curious since the 1950s. The Ferry Building was many immigrant newcomers’ final stop before heading to the mainland to begin their lives in America. It has been described as the “happiest” place on the island. Ellis Island was millions of immigrants’ gateway to a new life, with as many as 5,000 newcomers being processed each day in the early 1900s. The Ferry Building was where immigrants hitched a ride to shore after passing the legal and health inspections.

More than 12 million immigrants were processed at Ellis Island, and today there are about that many undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. who can only dream of being legal residents. Our economy is obviously dependent on immigrant labor, yet the government doesn’t provide them with a legal avenue to enter the country. The result is our reality: a porous and dangerous border marked by ruthless smugglers and vigilante patrols, huge populations of settled illegal immigrants too fearful to make the trip home despite the seasonal nature of their work, and increasingly hateful rhetoric emanating from the mainstream press regarding the presence of undocumented immigrants.

We desperately need Congress to address this issue. President Bush, one year ago, put forward a sensible plan for reform that includes a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. The Democratic takeover of the House and Senate was good news for those of us who support the president’s idea, but while some politicians have promised meaningful reform, absolutely nothing has been done about it.

Who knows how many more of the shuttered buildings of Ellis Island will be refurbished and opened to the public in the time it takes Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform. We’re still waiting…

Denver's dark underbelly

One of the most highly regarded newspapers in the country recently ran a story on Denver, but it wasn’t complimentary. The New York Times published a piece on the rash of unsolved gun crimes that have gripped Denver in recent months. The story was no doubt inspired by the shocking assault on a group of college students from Kansas, who were shot even after surrendering their wallets to muggers at a light rail station in the Five Points neighborhood near downtown. One of the students remains in the hospital in serious condition.

When Darrent Williams, the Denver Bronco, was shot and killed through the window of his limousine a few months ago, the media spotlight again turned to Denver’s problem with gangs and guns. While the Williams murder commanded more attention than others, police have been fighting a burgeoning movement of gang violence that has claimed many lives, including several key witnesses who were slated to testify against gang members.

Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancée, Vivian Wolfe, both 22, were shot dead in June 2005 just before Marshall-Fields was scheduled to testify in a murder trial. Two men have been convicted in the murders of Marshall-Fields and Wolfe and may face the death penalty. In another case of witness killing, Kalonniann Clark, 28, was murdered in front of her home last December after she refused to withdraw her name from the witness list in the attempted murder trial of suspected gang member Brian Kenneth Hicks, 27. Hicks tried to kill Clark herself in June 2005, and she was considered the prime witness for the prosecution.

The killing of witnesses poses a grave threat to our judicial system. If people are scared to testify, prosecutors won’t be able to build strong cases against gang members, who are notoriously hard to convict as it is.

Denver needs to save its reputation and quality of life by pumping more resources into combating gang activity and steering young people away from the lure of street life. Children who are at-risk of becoming involved in gangs should be our priority; public schools and state agencies must do everything possible to encourage these kids to seek education and employment by offering after-school and extra curricular activities, summer programs, academic tutoring and personal counseling.

The last thing we need

It's bad enough U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., keeps getting elected to Congress, embarrassing our state with his outrageously ignorant and racist comments, but the thought of Tancredo as president, or even as the Republican nominee, is truly terrifying.

Tancredo announced his presidential bid this morning on a radio talk show in Des Moines, Iowa. His candidacy will focus almost entirely on immigration issues. But what else would we expect from "Tancrazy?" His hatred for immigrants permeates every political move he makes.

Tancredo is the number one anti-illegal immigration crusader in Congress. He is the promoter of some of the most irrational immigration policy measures and the author of some of the most asinine comments ever heard on the subject.

Tancredo vehemently opposes any immigration reform plan that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers currently residing in the U.S. He strongly supports building a 2,000-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, despite plenty of research indicating tighter border security only encourages permanent settlement in the U.S. by immigrants who would otherwise opt to return home to Mexico. This is a perfect example of how shallow Tancredo's understanding is of the only issue he concerns himself with.

Let's take a moment to recall some of Tancredo's most shining public statements. There was the time he suggested bombing the Muslim holy city of Mecca in response to terrorist attacks. Oh, and the time he compared Miami to a Third World country, prompting outrage among citizens and admonishment from Governor Jeb Bush. And no one can forget Tancredo's criticism of the memorial plans for flight 93, which crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, in Pennsylvania. Tancredo balked at the Interior Department's plan to create a memorial in the shape of a crescent.

"The appropriateness of the design has been questioned by many people because of the crescent’s prominent use as a symbol in Islam...It has raised questions in some circles about whether the design, if constructed, will in fact make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers rather than the victims..." Tancredo wrote in a letter to the Department of Interior. (Read the whole letter here).

Thankfully, in a pool of well-rounded Republican candidates, Tancredo probably doesn't have a snowball's chance of securing the nomination. Thank goodness, for he would surely be the worst president ever; his legacy would be to replace our tolerance with bigotry, and our hope with fear and suspicion.