Knowledge is power. I'll never forget the first time Collegian News Adviser John Harvey slowly and deliberately printed those words across the chalkboard on my first day of candidate class almost two years ago.

He paused a moment to let it sink in. Then, he said information had the ability to change people's lives. A reporter need only provide his or her audience with the facts -- all of the facts -- and trust people to make their own informed decisions. Knowledge makes people's lives better. If you didn't believe that, then you were in the wrong place, he said.

That was the beginning of my education in journalism.

The "knowledge is power" tenet is one that journalists eat, sleep, breathe and live by. It's the driving force that makes them put their lives in danger, place their families on hold, leave their homelands and live the kind of unpredictable, fast-paced life that causes many in the profession to smoke a lot of cigarettes, drink a lot of caffeine, sleep erratically and develop slight nervous conditions.

Most importantly, the promise of empowering and informing the public also allows journalists to look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day when their work exposes mistakes, ruins lives, causes firings or jail time, pries into the most private and painful depths of a person's business or just plain pisses people off.

People need to know when their cars have dangerous malfunctions, their children's schools are lacking and their politicians are lying to them. We provide this information, which sometimes comes at a high cost, so that the people we serve can benefit. So that someone, somewhere can use that knowledge to improve his or her life.

At least, that is what I always thought journalism was about. But when NBC news decided to air video clips, pictures and quotes from the "manifesto" of Virgina Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, I don't think the public interest was at stake. I don't think any lives were improved. On the contrary, I think many lives were irreparably damaged.

Cho, who killed 32 Virgina Tech students and professors before he turned the gun on himself, sent the station a package between his first and second rampages on the campus. Days later NBC received the package, sifted through it, gave it to police and chose to air some of its contents. NBC defended itself by saying that it had carefully chosen only five out of 23 photos and select text and video clippings. NBC president Steve Capus called the decision to broadcast Cho's package "good journalism." However, this grossly ignores one of the central practices of "good journalism" -- protecting victims.

Most families and friends of victims were angered and hurt by the media's decision to give Cho and his manifesto so much coverage -- exactly what he was looking for when he killed these innocent people and prepared those statements. Peter Read, the father of victim Mary Read, pleaded for the media to stop broadcasting the images, which he called a "second assault" on deceased students and their families, according to CNN.com. They haven't.

And who can imagine what it would be like to have survived this nightmare only to open a newspaper, turn on a TV or go online and once again be forced to look down the barrel of two of Cho's guns? For this reason some victims and their family members canceled interviews with shows like NBC's Today Show. Stations should have expected this after their complete insensitivity to these sources just two days after such a tragedy. Virginia State policemen said they were also disappointed and sorry about the channel's "editorial decision" to show the disturbing images.

Personally, I'm disappointed in their moral decision as human beings. This was a case of NBC looking out for NBC -- not the public and certainly not the victims. The station took full advantage of being the first with access to these materials. It was about ratings. It was about m-o-n-e-y. It was about ambition. It was about beating the competition. And, the competition is no better. They all quickly followed suit with NBC and rebroadcast the images. But the truth is the manifesto didn't really provide "knowledge." It was much more about shock value.

NBC said that the biggest question after this tragedy was "why?" However, besides some references in the packet to Cho's hatred for hedonists, rich kids and women, which the Associated Press called "rambling and incoherent," we are still left with that question largely unanswered.

Associated Press reporter Allen Breed wrote that the manifesto "didn't explain why he did it. It did show his anger."

That's the biggest problem. The media gave him a platform to spread around his anger and hatred -- possibly to other troubled individuals who could share his delusions and copy his actions. According to CNN.com, mental health experts said that future killers could be created and emboldened by the media's coverage of Cho and that people needed to be alert for warning signs. The media repeated and repeated Cho's hope that his violent acts would bear "children." They echo over and over his delusional comparison of the Columbine killers and himself to Jesus and martyrs. In the end, they have rewarded a killer with the notoriety and coverage he desired.

So, please don't watch it. Every time someone clicks their mouse on that manifesto it's money in their greedy pockets and it's condoning their decision to publish the materials -- and goes against the wishes of victims' families.

Someday, after study by psychologists and law enforcement, Cho's manifesto may provide worthwhile insight into the mind of a mass murder. Maybe it will help educate people on what signs to look for and what profile these killers fit so that a similar tragedy may be avoided in the future. That's an article I would read. That's knowledge that can empower, not just confuse, frighten and sensationalize. It's knowledge that can protect, not cause, future victims.

At the end of the day, I don't know how some of these stations' leaders will look at themselves in the mirror. These journalists may have endangered the lives of the public they have the duty to serve, instead of empowering them. I do know they will have a heavy burden on their shoulders if, God forbid, others follow Cho's irrational lead.