People hijacking the Boston bombings to push their own agenda

Original post by TenOfThem

As would be the case with many people :smile:

But not all, you are missing my point entirely.

Also, I'm assumuing you are using the same argument for the BBC and other media outlets, that because people are at work etc and not looking at the website etc, they'd keep it a minor story on the website and news channel etc? Correct?

Reply 22

Original post by the mezzil

And that is exactly my point! The last paragraph! Hardly any coverage, yet 10 times as deadly! Why? That is all I am asking.

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-2216820, it's a minor story, yet there are so many stories to tell (interviews etc)

How hard is it to get journalists to the remote areas that were affected by the quake? To quote the BBC article "The quake struck deep and in a remote region" - that's probably why the story isn't being widely covered in the media, no one is there to report on it.

There are obviously going to be more regular reports in the news about things that happen in major cities, it's much easier to investigate, research, interview in Boston than it is is the mountains of Iran.

Basically, it's not racism/bias/some sort of agenda...it's geography.

Reply 23

Original post by gateshipone

How hard is it to get journalists to the remote areas that were affected by the quake? To quote the BBC article "The quake struck deep and in a remote region" - that's probably why the story isn't being widely covered in the media, no one is there to report on it.

There are obviously going to be more regular reports in the news about things that happen in major cities, it's much easier to investigate, research, interview in Boston than it is is the mountains of Iran.

Basically, it's not racism/bias/some sort of agenda...it's geography.

If that is true, then we should see this news report trending as we get more information? Yes? And I believe this remote area is close to the city of Khash, so I assume that as soon as rescue workers arrive, the injured would be taken to the hospitals there for treatment, where I also assume that the media would be there waiting for stories etc, since they are not race orientated in their news coverage?

Reply 24

Original post by the mezzil

If that is true, then we should see this news report trending as we get more information? Yes? And I believe this remote area is close to the city of Khash, so I assume that as soon as rescue workers arrive, the injured would be taken to the hospitals there for treatment, where I also assume that the media would be there waiting for stories etc, since they are not race orientated in their news coverage?

Depends which media you're talking about. Local media for sure, world media will still take time to get there.

Also, it's just an earthquake. Yes it's tragic, yes there are a lot of deaths, but it's not like the news is suddenly going to be something crazy and new like "earthquake caused by godzilla farting". The fact is the report will be "quake happened, people injured and killed". End of story. Considering the number of quakes that DON'T get reported on at all each day, it's hardly a surprised that a relatively big, but not unusually sized quake is not grabbing the top spot on the news.

Reply 25

Original post by gateshipone

Depends which media you're talking about. Local media for sure, world media will still take time to get there.

Also, it's just an earthquake. Yes it's tragic, yes there are a lot of deaths, but it's not like the news is suddenly going to be something crazy and new like "earthquake caused by godzilla farting". The fact is the report will be "quake happened, people injured and killed". End of story. Considering the number of quakes that DON'T get reported on at all each day, it's hardly a surprised that a relatively big, but not unusually sized quake is not grabbing the top spot on the news.

I understand there is no debate to be had (unless your gonna start arguing about the delayed response, and lack of preperation by the authorities etc) but I gurantee this will not be any of the front page headlines tomorrow, mostly towards the back of the papers as a sub story, and some won't even report it at all. Newspapers are not debating papers (unless it comes to politics) so should show major news such as the quake, whether there is to be a debate or not, it is still news. I gurantee it will be minor when compared to Boston.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 26

Original post by the mezzil

I understand there is no debate to be had (unless your gonna start arguing about the delayed response, and lack of preperation by the authorities etc) but I gurantee this will not be any of the front page headlines tomorrow, mostly towards the back of the papers as a sub story, and some won't even report it at all. Newspapers are not debating papers (unless it comes to politics) so should show major news such as the quake, whether there is to be a debate or not, it is still news. I gurantee it will be minor when compared to Boston.

It's not really major news though is it? It's a local event. Boston, whether we like it or not, is a more interesting story that may have international implications depending on what the investigation reveals. It's clearly going to get more press because of this.

Reply 27

Original post by gateshipone

It's not really major news though is it? It's a local event. Boston, whether we like it or not, is a more interesting story that may have international implications depending on what the investigation reveals. It's clearly going to get more press because of this.

I'd argue it is major news, since the large death toll, but okay I shall follow your thinking.

Care to explain why these are minor stories? They are all bombings and gunfights in a very volatile and excruciatingly watched areas for international implications, yes despite their death toll being dozens higher than Boston, they are not given a large coverage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22172219
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22153911

Reply 28

Unkempt_One

13

Terrorist attacks happen on practically a weekly basis in certain areas of the world, and any individual one of these attacks doesn't mark any particular change in the situation. On the other hand, incidents of this scale rarely happen in the west, so when they do occur, it happens to be more of a shock simply because of the rarity of an event of this context occurring. Furthermore, whereas we can be relatively certain about the causes of attacks in the middle east, this remains so far a mystery. The factors leading to the sheer amount of coverage are completely obvious. This meaningless moral posturing in the form of 'oh but this happens all the time in the rest of the world' is paper-thin and I'm honestly getting sick of these puerile statements.

Reply 29

Original post by the mezzil

I'd argue it is major news, since the large death toll, but okay I shall follow your thinking.

Care to explain why these are minor stories? They are all bombings and gunfights in a very volatile and excruciatingly watched areas for international implications, yes despite their death toll being dozens higher than Boston, they are not given a large coverage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22172219
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22153911

No, I won't try to explain why those are minor stories. All I'm saying is blaming some sort of racist agenda for these stories not being headline news is baseless without actual evidence. By evidence I mean something that clearly indicates that the BBC and other news organisations have it as a policy. Not highlighting stories you think are important.

Last year a guy drove around Cardiff running people over on purpose. It took hours for the national news to pick up on that story while the whole city came to a standstill. It was only the top headline for a few hours then was relegated to the Wales section of the website. Was that because of an anti-Welsh bias in the BBC? Most of the victims were white, maybe it was an anti-white agenda. Same for the papers, it wasn't even in the first 5 pages of most of the nationals.

What I'm saying is, just because they don't have certain stories as major news on the front page, doesn't mean they have an agenda. Until you have proof, you are just wildly speculating.

Reply 30

HouseLannister

OP

2

Original post by the mezzil

I'd argue it is major news, since the large death toll, but okay I shall follow your thinking.

Care to explain why these are minor stories? They are all bombings and gunfights in a very volatile and excruciatingly watched areas for international implications, yes despite their death toll being dozens higher than Boston, they are not given a large coverage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22172219
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22153911

If someone murders 3 people in England, do you think Iraqi media will cover that more than the murder of 1 person in Baghdad? Would it make Iraqi media racist for covering the murder of 2 people in Baghdad more so than the murder of 4 people in England? Even though the latter is double the amount of casualties? Does it make Iraqi media racist? Does that make it care less about white deaths?

Of course not, but I am going by your own logic here.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 31

Original post by HouseLannister

If someone murders 3 people in England, do you think Iraqi media will cover that more than the murder of 1 person in Baghdad? Would it make Iraqi media racist for covering the murder of 2 people in Baghdad more so than the murder of 4 people in England? Even though the latter is double the amount of casualties? Does it make Iraqi media racist? Does that make it care less about white deaths?

Of course not, but I am going by your own logic here.

I want an answer please why does this bomb gain so many publicty when there are so many innocent people who die weekly around the world by such similar acts. People seem to be side stepping this point on TSR.

Reply 32

Original post by gateshipone

No, I won't try to explain why those are minor stories. All I'm saying is blaming some sort of racist agenda for these stories not being headline news is baseless without actual evidence. By evidence I mean something that clearly indicates that the BBC and other news organisations have it as a policy. Not highlighting stories you think are important.

Last year a guy drove around Cardiff running people over on purpose. It took hours for the national news to pick up on that story while the whole city came to a standstill. It was only the top headline for a few hours then was relegated to the Wales section of the website. Was that because of an anti-Welsh bias in the BBC? Most of the victims were white, maybe it was an anti-white agenda. Same for the papers, it wasn't even in the first 5 pages of most of the nationals.

What I'm saying is, just because they don't have certain stories as major news on the front page, doesn't mean they have an agenda. Until you have proof, you are just wildly speculating.

I want an answer please why does this bomb gain so many publicty when there are so many innocent people who die weekly around the world by such similar acts. People seem to be side stepping this point on TSR.

Reply 33