31 Killed in Iraq, 200 injured - Iraqi lives not worth reporting eh?

Scroll to see replies

I fully understand where you are coming from with that, and the purpose of this thread is precisely to complain about the blackout and superficial reporting by the media.

The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.

I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

To be honest I don't know enough about the situation in Iraq to comment on how frequent bombings like this are, which I guess proves your point.

I'm not sure about the media coverage levels either but I guess they work on economic principles. As horrendous as it sounds humans like variation and the story about America is very unique and "close to home" whereas Iraqi conflicts have been heavily reported on in recent years due to the war and problems related to this. On top of this the war-torn, Islamic culture will feel very distant to your average news viewer.

Reply 21

Polka Dot

Original post by MENDACIUM

Number 1 is irrelevant. Number 2 does make sense. Number 3 is not a justification.

They all make sense and are completely relevant

The media needs to report on Merit, not Bias.

The media reports what is important to the audience.

If 10x more people die in event A, and the media ignores event A and solely reports on event B where 10x less people have died than even A, that's bias, and not proffesional coverage.

The media reports whats more important to the country. For example, if 2 british soldiers die in afgahnistan it is more likely to make the news in Britain than if two German soldiers die in afghanistan.

If one person in your family dies an 12 people in another family die who are you going to focus on?

I am not even suggesting Iraq should get equal time at all - let alone most of it. It surely deserves more coverage than the blackout we are seeing.

This will sound harsh but it is true. A bomb in Iraq is not important to people in the west, it doesn't affect them so if an event that impacts them more happens then the news will focus on that.

It's like a football game. When team A has a player tripped, the crowd go wild. When team B have a player shot, there's mild disturbance.

It's injustice, and apathy, brooded in a macabre cocktail i like to call the corporate media.

No not really, because people did die on the otherside. So a better analogy would be 1 play shot on team A and Two shot on team B.

If this happend what do you think people would do?

Fans of team A would focus more on team A and fans of team B would focus more on team B.

The media of a country will focus more on the events that effect people of that country. Thats just the way it is.

Reply 22

insignificant

Original post by MENDACIUM

Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).

BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?

This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.
These were BOMBS guys.

Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.

Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.

The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.

I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

You're talking as if we haven't done anything about it when really we have invested millions and sent thousands of soldiers over, with many of them dying trying to set up an infrastructure and stability for the country.

Reply 23

Cll_ws

It was reported, I saw it on the news the day it happened. What is it with everyone? :sigh:

It doesn't even need explaining why the bombing in Boston is a bigger story in the news. If it had gone off anywhere, London, New York, Sydney, Tokyo, Paris etc... it would receive more news coverage than the one in Iraq, these countries aren't war-torn, they don't experience bombings on a regular basis, they are countries like our own. We obviously don't know yet what's happened, but the implications of an attack on American soil are far more likely to affect us in the UK than a similar attack in Iraq would. In fact they already are with the questioning of security at the London Marathon. It is relevant to us because we face the same threats, and share the goals when it comes to preventing them. That's just how it works.

You presume that we're all oblivious to what's happening in the world. We know what is happening in Iraq and it's equally as terrible as any other similar event anywhere in the world. But they're unrelated events that people like you are using to try and make a point, a point that we've all heard so many times before. Pay your respects to the victims if you wish, just stop comparing them as it solves nothing.

Reply 24

takingtime

Original post by insignificant

This is very true and we shouldn't forget that. But by the same token don't forget that wasn't the original reason troops were sent over to Iraq!

Reply 25

Aj12

Original post by MENDACIUM

Apathy. Apathy tells us 'oh it happens...'

What exactly do you want though? The media covers what it thinks people want to hear. I'd be happily willing to bet most people in America, the UK and to some extent wider Europe would rather hear about a bombing in the US than one in Iraq.

Reply 26

danny111

Original post by MENDACIUM

Apathy. Apathy tells us 'oh it happens...'

Would you want a gong to go off every time a child dies somewhere in the 3rd world?

Reply 27

Barksy

Original post by MENDACIUM

By muslims, you mean politically motivated individuals trying to destabalize the government , and happen to be muslims right?

Call them what you want. It isn't breaking news.

Reply 28

Pyratheon

Media bias? Yes, people tend to care more about an explosion in their back yard than halfway across the world.

Reply 29

Hanvyj

Original post by MENDACIUM

I think its to do with frequency/shock of the event more to do with the value of life itself. There is also the physical and cultural difference.

Iraq has this kind of event frequently. It is awful, but sadly, it is no longer 'news'. When events happen so often, they loose their emotional reaction. Note the Syria conflict - It was in the news a lot when it first started, with civilians being bombed etc. Now its been going on for a long time, civilians are still being bombed but everyone knows that. When the news has a short report "x believed to have died" people are numbed to it, because they have seen it twice a week for the past year.

It doesn't mean that those people don't value the other's lives, its just human nature to adapt to news like that :s-smilie:

There is also the distance factor. When my local paper had an article on my local shop getting robbed recently I read it, I read it all and thought about it. My dad sent it me in a Facebook message, it was talked about.

You won't even know it happened. Because it is miles away from you, and you don't know anyone in my village. You won't know the shopkeeper for example.

This applies to all news. Prominent murders in the UK are often in the news for a day, they dominate it for that time. Go a few miles into France and you won't hear a single mention of it on their news.

If these is a fire in Paris and someone dies, I don't doubt that it will be in our news, probably again for a day or so. It might be in the US news.

It's likely not going to be on the news In Iraq, but someone robbing a shop there might be. Does this mean your average person in Iraq thinks that the local shop being robbed is more important than a French persons life?

No it doesn't, you can't apply logic that way.

BTW I do think that things like you mentioned should be reported more often though, but you can't say that British people value the lives of americans 10x more than Iraqis like that.

Reply 30

MENDACIUM

Original post by Aj12

Don't give it equal time - that's too representative.

Don't even give it 50/50

But surely 25/75?

Or better - don't have a media blackout?

I appreciate what you have said by the way. I am not arguing for a non-bias representative media. I am asking for one that does not have clear bias and blackouts.

Reply 31

MENDACIUM

Original post by Pyratheon

Media bias? Yes, people tend to care more about an explosion in their back yard than halfway across the world.

The flight distance from Boston, Massachusetts to London, United Kingdom is:

3,281 miles / 5 280 km

The flight distance from Iran to London, United Kingdom is:

2,975 miles / 4 788 km

http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Iran/to/London,+United+Kingdom

Over the pond :wink:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 32

Pyratheon

Original post by MENDACIUM

[h="1"]The flight distance from Boston, Massachusetts to London, United Kingdom is:[/h][h="3"]3,281 miles / 5 280 km[/h][h="1"]he flight distance from Iran to London, United Kingdom is:[/h][h="3"]2,975 miles / 4 788 km[/h]

We're a lot closer, culturally and socially, to the US.

Reply 33

takingtime

Original post by MENDACIUM

Just playing devil's advocate but it was 3,510 miles to Khash, Iran where the epicentre of the earthquake was. :P

Reply 34

username564415

What do you want us to say, everything people have said so far you've argued with.

Did you know that hundreds have probably died in Africa today? Omg Wtf why didn't the news report this!!!111

Reply 35

Steevee

You're over simplifying the whole thing. There are a variety of reasons why the things that happen in Iraq, Afghanistan etc are reported less.

The first is frequency. There's a level of fatigue that affects empathy and sympathy and I think we've reached that threshold in Iraq & Afghanistan. Secondly, the majority of civilian casualties are inflicted by the bad guys over there, against other people with whom we have no connection. In America they speak the same language as us, by and large hold similar values, have a similar culture, there is far more affinity between the average Brit and the average American than there is between the average Brit and the average Iraqi. Alongside that issue is that obviously this news is more shocking for us, people die every day in the most horrible ways in the DRC, DPRK and Sudan, but that's not nerely so relatable as this story is. It's not a case of Iraqi lives being worth less, or Muslim lives being worth less, it's just a natural occurance when it comes to the way the human mind works.

Reply 36

Steevee

Original post by MENDACIUM

Media blackouts? What are you talking about? Just because it's not headline news doesn't mean it's unreported, and a black-out implies intentional censorship.

Reply 37

Inzamam99

Muslim lives are worth less- there you go the harsh truth.

That said, people should just condemn the Boston bombings for the tragic event they were and stop always making comparisons to atrocities happening across the Muslim world- it's not a competition.

Reply 38

Dirac Delta Function

Original post by Inzamam99

Especially to other Muslims. The terrorists who murdered those 50 people in Iraq yesterday were Muslims.

Reply 39

mc1000

Original post by MENDACIUM

Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).

BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?

This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories.

Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.
These were BOMBS guys.

Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.

Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.

The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.

I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

I think the crucial thing to remember here is that attacks like this in the Middle East tend to be par for the course. Conflict, violence and general evil in this part of the world is so common that it basically isn't news any more. It's terrible, obviously, but it's become the norm. I think this is why people in developed countries are often more saddened by attacks happening in societies with a similar level of development than they are on countries where conflict is rife - the people in Western society go about their day completely oblivious of the fact that any kind of life threatening violence will befall them. To me, this makes news of a death all the more tragic.

America is a Western country that in most aspects is several centuries more developed than places such as Iran. So when an attack happens here, it's so much more random and unexpected. These are people who went out to see a marathon; no-one was expecting an attack. In the Newtown massacre... who the hell goes to school in a Western country and expects to be killed? Everyone in these events expects to go out for the day and to get home alive. Yet in Iran, if you're a civilian who goes outside, the risk of being killed is so much higher - it's a known risk and there's a relatively high chance you'll be caught up in an explosion or a shooting. It's just not as newsworthy, terrible though it is.

Let's also not forget the global implications for an attack on America. Although only a couple of people were killed, this random attack could now turn out to be one of the pivotal moments of the century. For these reasons it is so much more newsworthy than just yet another attack in the Middle East.