The Student Room Group

Why the news covers Western terror attacks more extensively than in other areas

It's amazing how many people I've heard complaining that Western news media reports terror attacks in the West more extensively than attacks in places like Africa and the Middle East. Here are some reasons why it's perfectly reasonable for the news to do this:

There are far more people in the UK who have relatives and friends in Western countries than those who have them in places like Syria or Nigeria. Therefore it is more relevant to the general population.

There are far more people in the UK who have been to Western countries than Middle Eastern or African countries. Thus they feel a stronger connection with them.

It's far more unexpected and shocking when a bomb goes off in a country which is generally very peaceful than it is when a bomb goes off in a country where one expects to hear incidents like this happening quite frequently.

The implications of a terror attack happening in a peaceful country are generally much bigger. For example, a bomb going off in Syria has very little affect on the current political atmosphere. An Islamic terrorist attack in France or Belgium will likely cause a major rise in support of anti-immigration parties, at a time when millions of people are coming into Europe, and the EU is in disarray due to conflicting opinions about it.

People in the UK feel more worried about attacks in the West because they feel if they can happen in a Western country, they are more likely to happen in our own.

The Paris attacks were a direct attack on Western culture. They killed people at a rock concert, they attacked outside a stadium where a football match was being played, they gunned down people eating and drinking. ISIS hate Western culture and want to destroy it. Western people are generally interested in knowing when the culture they hold dear is being attacked.

People feel a stronger connection with cultures that have values which are closer to their own. This is actually goes the core of how caring works. If we can't connect with something, we find it hard to care about it. If I told you that somewhere in the universe, an entire world full of intelligent life has just evaporated as it fell into a blackhole, you'd find it pretty impossible to care about it on an emotional level. It would very interesting, but I doubt you'd start crying about it. How much we feel connected to something is all important to how much we emotionally care about it.

The news doesn't actually discriminate against non-Western countries. When that bomb went off in Bangkok last year, it got lots of coverage. But again, quite a lot of British people have been to Thailand; relatively few of them have been to Iraq. It's also a peaceful country, and quite a modern country which shares many values with our own. The news is simply interested in reporting what the highest number people are interested in; and people are interested stories they feel are more relevant to them.

Scroll to see replies

Most sensible thing you've said all day.
So basically what you saying is people sdont care that much about terrible events that happens in the world unless it effects them in some way or is closer to home?
Original post by Amnotgreatguy
So basically what you saying is people sdont care that much about terrible events that happens in the world unless it effects them in some way or is closer to home?


Greatguy is that you?
Original post by Amnotgreatguy
So basically what you saying is people sdont care that much about terrible events that happens in the world unless it effects them in some way or is closer to home?


Would you care more about a murder in your street or in another city in the UK?
At least someone is here to bring some common sense to The Student Room
Original post by KingBradly
It's amazing how many people I've heard complaining that Western news media reports terror attacks in the West more extensively than attacks in places like Africa and the Middle East. Here are some reasons why it's perfectly reasonable for the news to do this:

There are far more people in the UK who have relatives and friends in Western countries than those who have them in places like Syria or Nigeria. Therefore it is more relevant to the general population.

There are far more people in the UK who have been to Western countries than Middle Eastern or African countries. Thus they feel a stronger connection with them.

It's far more unexpected and shocking when a bomb goes off in a country which is generally very peaceful than it is when a bomb goes off in a country where one expects to hear incidents like this happening quite frequently.

The implications of a terror attack happening in a peaceful country are generally much bigger. For example, a bomb going off in Syria has very little affect on the current political atmosphere. An Islamic terrorist attack in France or Belgium will likely cause a major rise in support of anti-immigration parties, at a time when millions of people are coming into Europe, and the EU is in disarray due to conflicting opinions about it.

People in the UK feel more worried about attacks in the West because they feel if they can happen in a Western country, they are more likely to happen in our own.

The Paris attacks were a direct attack on Western culture. They killed people at a rock concert, they attacked outside a stadium where a football match was being played, they gunned down people eating and drinking. ISIS hate Western culture and want to destroy it. Western people are generally interested in knowing when the culture they hold dear is being attacked.

People feel a stronger connection with cultures that have values which are closer to their own. This is actually goes the core of how caring works. If we can't connect with something, we find it hard to care about it. If I told you that somewhere in the universe, an entire world full of intelligent life has just evaporated as it fell into a blackhole, you'd find it pretty impossible to care about it on an emotional level. It would very interesting, but I doubt you'd start crying about it. How much we feel connected to something is all important to how much we emotionally care about it.

The news doesn't actually discriminate against non-Western countries. When that bomb went off in Bangkok last year, it got lots of coverage. But again, quite a lot of British people have been to Thailand; relatively few of them have been to Iraq. It's also a peaceful country, and quite a modern country which shares many values with our own. The news is simply interested in reporting what the highest number people are interested in; and people are interested stories they feel are more relevant to them.



I agree with all of those points (except maybe last one). I don't like that that it how it is however. I know that people care more about what feels closer to home, that doesn't mean I think that makes it morally acceptable. I know those are the reasons, but that doesn't make it right. You haven;t given any ethical argument. You just stated what you think are facts.

So to all you dunderheads in this thread that can not distinguish betweens facts and ethics... I agree with the facts, it is your ethical con conclusion you draw from those facts I don;t agree with and I will keep complaining about western media coverage.

Deal with it.

(•_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

Spoiler

(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I agree with all of those points (except maybe last one). I don't like that that it how it is however. I know that people care more about what feels closer to home, that doesn't mean I think that makes it morally acceptable. I know those are the reasons, but that doesn't make it right. You haven;t given any ethical argument. You just stated what you think are facts.

So to all you dunderheads in this thread that can not distinguish betweens facts and ethics... I agree with the facts, it is your ethical con conclusion you draw from hose facts I don;t agree with and I will keep complaining about western media coverage.

Deal with it.

(•_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

Spoiler



I think ethics are irrelevant here. The question is "why should the news cover terror attacks in the West more than in other areas", and the answer is that it's because people feel more concerned about terror attacks in the West for very natural and understandable reasons. Do you think people should cry over every death in the world, as much as they cry over the deaths of people in their family? People care about things they feel a connection with. There isn't anything wrong with it, that's just how pretty much every social animal is wired. It's simply impossible to care about everything in the world, but isn't it enough, isn't it pretty great, that we care about as much as we do? You can't force people to pretend to care about things which they are simply not wired to be able to. That would be pretty unethical in itself.
Original post by KingBradly
x


Menar du att västvärlden och vita liv betyder mer än andra länder och liv???

Translation: Are you saying that western countries and white lives more matter than other countries and lives ???
Reply 9
Original post by SwedenYes
Menar du att västvärlden och vita liv betyder mer än andra länder och liv???

Translation: Are you saying that western countries and white lives more matter than other countries and lives ???


Lol, trolling is funnier if you don't make it so obvious.
Original post by KingBradly
I think ethics are irrelevant here.


:facepalm:

You obviously don;t because you just proposed a subjective moral view point right after you said this sentence. A moral viewpoint I don't agree with.


Ask @viddy9 for a utilitarian perspective.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 11
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
:facepalm:

You obviously don;t because you just proposed a subjective moral view point right after you said this sentence. A moral viewpoint I don't agree with.


Ask @viddy9


The moral point was just additional. I still believe ethics are irrelevant to the question at hand, but if you want to talk about ethics, I think forcing the news to cover things which people aren't concerned about is rather totalitarian, and I think totalitarianism is very unethical in the sense that it reduces people's freedom.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I know that people care more about what feels closer to home, that doesn't mean I think that makes it morally acceptable. I know those are the reasons, but that doesn't make it right.


The thread title is "Why the news covers Western terror attacks more", not "Should the news cover Western terror attacks more".
Original post by Chrysisure
The thread title is "Why the news covers Western terror attacks more", not "Should the news cover Western terror attacks more".


Title does. Content of OP states the facts are a case of why western news should rather than just the why.

"It's amazing how many people I've heard complaining that Western news media reports terror attacks in the West more extensively than attacks in places like Africa and the Middle East. Here are some reasons why it's perfectly reasonable for the news to do this" ~ OP

I agree with the why but not his should.
(edited 7 years ago)
That about sums it up. It's always frustrating when people complain about this on Facebook or TSR or whatever and think they're making some kind of profound point. Why is there never as much media buzz about a bomb attack in the Middle East or Africa? Because it's like reporting on a fire in a furnace... A far away furnace that has little to do with us culturally, politically, or socially. Deaths in Afghanistan and Somalia or even India and Myanmar are an equal loss of human life, yes, but it doesn't resonate.
Original post by KingBradly
Lol, trolling is funnier if you don't make it so obvious.


It is what happening when I let my heart type :frown:

Sometimes, I am forgetting that the world is full of racists
Original post by KingBradly
The moral point was just additional. I still believe ethics are irrelevant to the question at hand, but if you want to talk about ethics, I think forcing the news to cover things which people aren't concerned about is rather totalitarian, and I think totalitarianism is very unethical in the sense that it reduces people's freedom.


Well then I was attacking your additional moral point which you clearly made. You are getting confused with facts and then building a moral framework up from those facts. I agree with the facts, but not the moral conclusion you draw from them in that these facts justify under reporting of more foreign disasters. I don't agree with that. I have a different moral outlook than you.

I never mentioned forcing the news to cover certain things. I just said I think there should be media that covers news in a more internationalist way. Hopswefully by convincing people of this it will create a market of media consumers that my preferred form of media can tap into. This already happens and is probably the trend. You even included Europe as being part of the west that receives greater coverage. Rewind to the 1800s and see if that was the case (it wasn't) If we are going to make bizarre comparisons to totalitarianism are you going to stop media from taking a more internationalist slant? Are you going to stop me from Kick Starting an internationalist platform for journalists?
Reply 17
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Well then I was attacking your additional moral point which you clearly made. You are getting confused with facts and then building a moral framework up from those facts. I agree with the facts, but not the moral conclusion you draw from them in that these facts justify under reporting of more foreign disasters. I don't agree with that. I have a different moral outlook than you.


But the problem is that the facts are evidence that building "a moral framework" up from them is likely impossible. We are absolutely hardwired to care more about things we have connections or are able to make connections with than those that we are less so able to, and I don't see any way in which that could change. You can call it unethical as much as you like, but it's never, ever going to change so I hardly see the point. It's like complaining that rocks are hard. Some changes are worth fighting for. Some changes are difficult, and may even require people evolving psychologically. But this goes far deeper than that. This is as fundamental as the fact that a leaf floating on a lake will shake more from the ripples of a falling stone the closer it is to it.

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I never mentioned forcing the news to cover certain things. I just said I think there should be media that covers news in a more internationalist way. Hopswefully by convincing people of this it will create a market of media consumers that my preferred form of media can tap into. This already happens and is probably the trend. You even included Europe as being part of the west that receives greater coverage. Rewind to the 1800s and see if that was the case (it wasn't) If we are going to make bizarre comparisons to totalitarianism are you going to stop media from taking a more internationalist slant? Are you going to stop me from Kick Starting an internationalist platform for journalists?


If people want the news to be internationalist, then great. I just think that the news should give people what they are interested in, which for the most part is what it does. By looking at what and where the news covers most, we can see that people care about things in pretty much exactly the way you would expect from a social mammal. Sure, I agree the news should pay more attention to certain areas of the world. South America especially. But you're never going to change the fundamental way in-which caring works.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by KingBradly
X


Excellent comment.

It's also strange that Islamic groups would complain about this given they claim that Muslims are uniquely sensitive to the suffering of all Muslims everywhere. They take a very strong interest in "oppression" and "indignities" that happen to people to whom they are connected by religion, even if they're never travelled to the country in question.

Most Western, English-speaking Muslims will care far more about a Palestinian being killed than an American being killed.

And yet they lecture us on the fact that the media understandably focuses more on events that are geographically closer to us, culturally closer to us and much rarer?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I agree with all of those points (except maybe last one). I don't like that that it how it is however. I know that people care more about what feels closer to home, that doesn't mean I think that makes it morally acceptable. I know those are the reasons, but that doesn't make it right. You haven;t given any ethical argument. You just stated what you think are facts.

So to all you dunderheads in this thread that can not distinguish betweens facts and ethics... I agree with the facts, it is your ethical con conclusion you draw from those facts I don;t agree with and I will keep complaining about western media coverage.

Deal with it.

(•_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

Spoiler



It's not so much about moral acceptability though. All kinds of horrible things happen every day. Hundreds of murders, rapes, home invasions, and that's before we consider things like occasional terrorist attacks. If we cared about all people indiscriminately, we literally couldn't function.

I mean, you're suggesting that it's not ethically right that we care more about people we have some kind of connection to, than those we don't. So, do you think it's wrong that people are more upset when someone in their family dies, than when some random Joe Bloggs dies? Is it wrong that you'd be more upset if your mom died, than if 10 people were killed in a terrorist attack in Pakistan?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending