Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

People hijacking the Boston bombings to push their own agenda watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R1C3W1N3)
    Okay what would you expect from the thread, what would you write in the thread?

    "How sad, RIP" "Terrible, thoughts and prayers with the family" etc. What else can you write?

    Okay fair enough, but this is a website for forums, it's not like the news where they "have to" broadcast news... and I haven't seen anything on TV about the quake, what you say about the NEWS may be correct, in that I haven't heard anything on TV, I found out checking the app, your argument should be why news channels are not showing more of the coverage on the quake?
    I'm getting bored of repeating myself, It is not about the content of the thread, it's the fact it was not done. And no nobody "has to" but you would assume they would right? I mean why would people not start a thread? (other than they are not online which is obvious) Is it because they do not care? Why? Do you have an alternative viewpoint that I could consider?

    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)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    As would be the case with many people
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HouseLannister)
    How do you know people 'do not care'? Is a requirement of caring about something articulating it, or can you not feel it? If so, how are you qualified to speak for people's feelings?



    Terrorism provokes far more of a reaction and debate than a natural disaster. The Boston bombing is shocking, unresolved and has raised the terror threat - this is why there are pages of discussion and speculation on TSR. A thread about the earthquake in the Middle East would only garner sympathetic comments which people can feel inside without having to articulate. There is more discussion on the Boston bombing because, by its very nature, it provokes debate and speculation.



    A nonsense strawman argument which is dropping the race card at the same time.

    The Western media is providing more coverage to the Boston bombing because: 1) it is completely out-of-the-ordinary which therefore makes it newsworthy, 2) the US shares cultural and political ties with other Western countries which naturally makes the Western media have a greater interest, 3) a terrorist attack on US soil has strong implications for Western countries because of an increased terror threat and the fact that many Western countries are members of NATO.

    How do you know it was only white people who died or were injured in the explosions?
    PRSOM
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    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.
    Why did things happening in England which I considered to be trivial take priority over a city wide attack on civilians in Cardiff last year?

    I'm not side stepping the issue at all, I'm just pointing out that your argument is based on nothing but your own personal opinion of what's "important".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    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.
    That has been explained to you numerous times, in how the media decides which news stories are more newsworthy than others (cultural ties, shock factor, implications and so on).

    Now how about you answer the question I asked, because it follows your own logic: 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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    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.
    No one's side-stepping the point. People have explained several times in this thread why this is the case. "People seem to be side-stepping this point" my ass. Are you here to make a profound point or are you just here to pretend your arguments come from a moral highground?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    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.
    1. It's out of the ordinary, hence news. If every single bomb of the same scale from around the world was reported we would have no time or space for local news. Hence it is only reported when something changes in the bigger picture. It is sad, but "bomb goes off in dangerous far away place" is not news, whilst "bomb goes off in safe far away place" is. You may have a point that news shouldn't work like that, but you can't deduce that it's about race.

    2. America is culturally almost identical to us - language, politics, base religion, NATO, culture, state of development - they are all slightly different, but we are far closer to them than we are to the middle east. Distance is less important than sentiment. You can argue this part is racist if you like, but I would say that it's no different from reporting local news more than you would non-local news.

    3. A terrorist attack (if that is what this was) on America has direct implications for us, as part of 'the West'. Will more bombings follow in Europe? Are we safe in the streets like we thought we were? An earthquake or bomb in Iran has no such implications.

    I don't actually disagree with you entirely - I think a lot of people in developed countries (myself included) like to think of themselves as aware of the world whilst completeley choosing when they actually care, and having no intention of helping people in other countries, who they never see as just like themselves. However, the above is why the news coverage is what it was, and shouting 'racist' is far too simplistic.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.