BREAKING: Reports of multiple explosions at Boston Marathon leaving dozens wounded.

Scroll to see replies

Why? Some disasters effect and influence us more than others. If a family member of mine dies I am going to spend more time mourning than if someone I don't know dies. Yes it is sad that they died but if we gave each tradgedy equal coverage than we would spend our lives crying, so we prioritize the tradgedies that affect those closest to us or ourselves are the the tradgedies we spend most of our time on.

You live in the UK. They live in the America. It doesn't make them a family member if they speak English. It won't influence you more. If someone dies in front you, would you just leave the person because he is not your family member? Come on, we are all human beings. Underneath all the skin, we are all the same.

Reply 581

pyaesone

Original post by G8D

We're closer to them than all these non-countries in the middle east everyone keeps crying about.

You are just being close and bla bla. In fact, in reality, it's just all closeness in politics. Americans don't even give a damn about British people and they think that their country is just the greatest country in the world.

Reply 582

pyaesone

Original post by little_wizard123

My birthday! Don't forget that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on this date. But I get cake so it's all good.

"But I get cake so it's all good" LOL classic :biggrin:

Reply 583

pyaesone

Original post by G8D

I don't particularly care about the Boston bombing nor deaths in the middle east, I was just indicating why it makes sense to care more about American death/politics. We have more in common with them than other countries.

It'd be a similar story had someone set off a bomb in France or something. Perhaps slightly less due to the mass of American influence over the English internet.

Well, true. Vast majority of media coverage has the voice of America. One of the saddest stories of the world. It is unfair.

Reply 584

Cll_ws

Original post by pyaesone

You live in the UK. They live in the America. It doesn't make them a family member if they speak English. It won't influence you more.

It does influence us more though. The implications of an attack on American soil are much more likely to affect us than a similar attack in the middle-east would. We face the same threats, and we share the same goals when it comes to stopping those threats. It's already affected us in a small way with the security at the London marathon being questioned/tightened. Would that have happened if only the bombing in Iraq had happened, and not the Boston one? Of course not.

The news is about more than just reporting death tolls. We know that people are dying every day in other countries, we're not oblivious to it just because it's not headline news.

Reply 585

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by pyaesone

This!

There's a lack of empathy in this world. It's worrying that people can make distinctions in their minds between who is, and who is not worthy of our sadness, based on ethnicity, culture or language.

It's obvious to me that the peoples of the Middle East have become so dehumanised in our eyes that they place lower on the victim hierarchy. The media provide no historical context to 30 second features on suicide bombs or a botched missile strike.

Oh dearism in effect.

Reply 586

Polka Dot

Original post by pyaesone

Well, true. Vast majority of media coverage has the voice of America. One of the saddest stories of the world. It is unfair.

If you don't like the coverage dont watch it. I am sure al jazeera will be giving the Iraqi bombing more time so why not watch them?

Your complaining is like a person going to Burger King and complaining they don't serve pizza. If you want pizza you go to Pizza Hut. If you want middle eastern news coverage you watch an eastern news channel.

Reply 587

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by Polka Dot

Can he not be concerned that the majority of the UK population get the news from terrestrial channels and tabloid newspapers?

And using your logic, if news about the Middle East should be obtained exclusively from middle eastern news broadcasters (on satellite television that not everyone has), then news about the US shouldn't be on British television so regularly either.

Britain also has a significant middle eastern immigrant population by the way, a lot of whom are license payers.

Reply 588

Polka Dot

Original post by pyaesone

You live in the UK. They live in the America. It doesn't make them a family member if they speak English.

They share more in common with us then Iraqis do.

It won't influence you more. If someone dies in front you, would you just leave the person because he is not your family member?

1. They aren't dieing in front of me and there is nothing I can do so your argument is faulty.

2. Ofcourse I would help a person dieing in front of me. However if there was a choice between saving a dieing stranger and saving a dieing family member who would you save?

3. It does influence me more, America is an ally, if an ally is attacked there is a potential that you will be attacked or that you will have to go to war.

America was attacked on september 11, what happend? Britain went to war in afghanistan. So what happens in america effects us in the UK too.

Come on, we are all human beings. Underneath all the skin, we are all the same.

The intrinsic value of a human life is equal for everyone but this is not the same as the acquired value of a human life. A human life has different levels of importance to different people.Yes all humans are of equal value, but not of equal importance to everyone. My mothers life is more important to me than a stranger on the street. Your mothers life is probably more important to you than my life is.

Reply 589

Polka Dot

Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt

Can he not be concerned that the majority of the UK population get the news from terrestrial channels and tabloid newspapers?

Ofcourse he can be concerned. Is it a valid concern? Thats up to you to decide for yourself.

And using your logic, if news about the Middle East should be obtained exclusively from middle eastern news broadcasters (on satellite television that not everyone has), then news about the US shouldn't be on British television so regularly either.

Did I say that middle eastern new should be obtained exclusivley from the middle east? No I did not. I said it makes sense that news will be region-centric, so the majority of news on a middle eastern news station will be about the middle east.

Using the example of restaurants. It is quite possible for Burger King to make pizza however it is not there primary focus, so there is no point going into a Burger King and expecting them to serve pizza, they can if they want to but it is unlikely.

It's the same thing with news, western news stations main focus is on the west, so if you watch western news you should expect it to be predominantly focused on the west.

Britain also has a significant middle eastern immigrant population by the way, a lot of whom are license payers.

Are they in the majority? No. News is a business, it would be a poor business for you to spend equal amounts of time covering things that only interest a small portion of your audience.

Reply 590

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by Polka Dot

Ofcourse he can be concerned. Is it a valid concern? Thats up to you to decide for yourself.

Did I say that middle eastern new should be obtained exclusivley from the middle east? No I did not. I said it makes sense that news will be region-centric, so the majority of news on a middle eastern news station will be about the middle east.

Using the example of restaurants. It is quite possible for Burger King to make pizza however it is not there primary focus, so there is no point going into a Burger King and expecting them to serve pizza, they can if they want to but it is unlikely.

It's the same thing with news, western news stations main focus is on the west, so if you watch western news you should expect it to be predominantly focused on the west.

Are they in the majority? No. News is a business, it would be a poor business for you to spend equal amounts of time covering things that only interest a small portion of your audience.

You and I clearly differ on what the purpose and nature of news should be.

Reply 591

Polka Dot

Original post by G8D

Apparently the FBI have released the images but fbi.gov is dead for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/boston-bombing-fbi-images-suspects-live

Same here. Must be crashing with hight traffic.

Reply 592

Polka Dot

Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt

You and I clearly differ on what the purpose and nature of news should be.

So what should the Purpose and Nature of news be?

Reply 593

anonymouse01

Original post by G8D

Apparently the FBI have released the images but fbi.gov is dead for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/boston-bombing-fbi-images-suspects-live

Brown. Can't be Hindus. Can't be Sikhs.
GOTTA BE THE ISLAMISTS

Posted from TSR iPad

Reply 594

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by Polka Dot

So what should the Purpose and Nature of news be?

I've posted above on what I would like to be informed about from the major broadcasters.

Feel free to have a read.

My concern is more for the general public. I have taken the time to expand my reading and I don't rely on the BBC, ITV or CH4. Unfortunately a lot of people do.

Reply 595

ozzyoscy

Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt

The news coverage of the bombing is entirely disproportionate to the extent of human suffering.

I don't think it's unfair to ask why the BBC give limited coverage of a bombing in Iraq that kills 33 people, and extensive, 24 hour coverage of a bomb that kills 3 people.

The special relationship explanation doesn't satisfy me. Personally, I could feasibly have more in common with an Iraqi victim than with an American one. Regardless of race, culture, language or any other unquantifiable similarity.

Give me the stories of those who suffer the most. They're who I care about.

People identify more with people who look the same and speak the same language, and are politically similar. Thus it sells more. News isn't about news, after all.

Reply 596

AtlasCanTakeIt

Original post by ozzyoscy

People identify more with people who look the same and speak the same language, and are politically similar. Thus it sells more. News isn't about news, after all.

Correct.

I'm making a qualitative assessment of what I would like to see in the news.

I also think that British involvement in the Iraq war should effect news coverage of events there.

Reply 597

ozzyoscy

Original post by Muffled Snuffles

One of the suspects is quite clearly White.

Must be one of them Central/Eastern Europeans. First they're taking our livelihoods, now our lives, and they're entirely to blame.

I'm moving out of this country!

*Gets laid out by the Hypocrisy Bat of Justice*

Reply 598

ozzyoscy

Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt

Correct.

I'm making a qualitative assessment of what I would like to see in the news.

I also think that British involvement in the Iraq war should effect news coverage of events there.

If I had a personable news channel, there'd be no stories. I mean, pretty much everything is irrelevant, not least the minutes and hours and days and weeks spent covering some rich stranger getting engaged/married/pregnant or on people miles away dying or getting hurt. Why'd I wanna know about that?

Reply 599

Chindits

Looks to me like we've got a couple of Asians in the frame.

I'm shocked.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they're practitioners of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam :smile: