Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why are the Boston bombings covered whilst the Iraqi bombings are not? The Boston bombings killed two and injured 20 whilst the Iraqi bombings killed 31 and injured 200.
    Sources: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22159006

    I'm not trying to retract from the fact that the Boston bombings is an extremely sad situation but where is the logic in covering one (slightly less tragic) event and not the other? Surely, if one event has more casualties than other it should at least be covered as much as the other if not more?

    This all makes me feel as if the Western ideology is promoting that a life is more valuable than other if they have a Western background.

    Thoughts?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Americans are quite happy for middle eastern civilians to die every day at the hands of american soldiers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because white, western life is more "precious" than brown/black life in Africa/Middle East.

    White supremacy at it's finest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So I'm guessing the lack of every gun crime is double standard? Explosions don't happen often there, gun crime does, it's only school shootings, the cinema shooting or some neighbourhood watch guy shooting someone and claiming it was a thug that gets reported.

    It's usually a given that the explosions in Iraq are just mindless.

    Even in this country, murders are barely front page news, barely any poops are given about murders. It's not news if it happens all the time.

    How about lack of shocking front page news that North Korea has bad living standards?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorist attacks happen in Iraq all the time. The last one to happen in Boston was something having to do with tea about 250 years ago. As an American I recognize that both events in Boston have likely affected my life profoundly. Bombings in Iraq, though equally tragic, are much less influential to my existence. They are therefore not as newsworthy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Because Muslims blowing up Muslims is a daily occurrence, a successful terrorist attack on the US is not. Plus we are very close with the US, we share a lot of culture and many people have family and friends who live there so naturally we are going to be more interested in an attack which happens in a country we are so close with.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    it's not about western life's being more "precious", it's about things which are deemed "news worthy". Bombings/terrorist attacks happen on a fairly regular basis in some unstable middle eastern countries, but a bombing in America is very rare.

    Just like you'd hear about someone being stabbed to death in a fairly safe affluent neighbourhood or in a very public place. But you don't here about the daily stabbings in London, for instance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth Stewie)
    Because Muslims blowing up Muslims is a daily occurrence, a successful terrorist attack on the US is not. Plus we are very close with the US, we share a lot of culture and many people have family and friends who live there so naturally we are going to be more interested in an attack which happens in a country we are so close with.
    You watch how much news there is when North Korea decides to go gun hoes on america lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As someone mentioned above, it's about newsworthiness.

    The attack in Boston is negative, shocking, impacts Westerners, impacts Americans, impacts Europeans, an out of the blue occurrence, a talking point, leaves people reeling.

    These factors all contribute to making a story hit the headlines.

    It's a disgusting truth that attacks like this happen in places like Iraq so often, they no longer grab the same worldwide media attention as perhaps they should. But it's just because it happens so often.

    In reality however, is this really the most important thing that needs to be discussed so soon after the attack? Take time to reflect and help a little, before calling out the American media for being biased towards... Americans.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    You only have to look at comic books as a genre to realise american values are essentially comprised of American life>Superior to all else. Superman choosing to spend his life protecting an american city, Batman dedicated to New York, Spiderman also donning the red white and blue to defend one place where they just damn well deserve better.


    It's a highly prevalent belief, and this is just another example of it. :sad:


    That said, it's nobodies fault. The american people didn't get together and say they didn't care about anyone born outside the USA, it's just that newspapers about elsewhere won't sell compared to newspapers about Boston.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually over hundred have been injured and that's just what is known atm to the media and three people have died.

    As people have already said stuff like this is normal in the Middle East (unfortunately) if every time they reported a bomb going off somewhere in Middle each they would probably be doing it everyday. It's sad but it's true.

    I was watching a Youtube video of some guy on holiday in Egypt and whilst he was in a restaurant there was some sort of unrest and gunshots were fired and non of the locals batted an eyelid because gunshots and bombings and stuff were just normal to them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine the up raw if one of those killed was English.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeavyTeddy)
    Why are the Boston bombings covered whilst the Iraqi bombings are not? The Boston bombings killed two and injured 20 whilst the Iraqi bombings killed 31 and injured 200.
    Sources: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863
    By your own admission, the Iraqi bombings have been covered by the Western media.

    So your question must be why the Boston bombings have been covered to a much greater extent.

    It says a lot about the intelligence and/or agenda of someone who apparently cannot fathom why there is greater coverage.

    I don't need to explain why there is huge domestic coverage of it in the US, but as to other Western countries:

    1) In Britain (and I am sure this applies to other Western countries), a terrorist attack on US soil has more implications for us than on Iraqi soil because it increases the threat level here.

    2) Britain (and other Western countries) share language, culture, religion (and so on) with the US so naturally there is going to more interest in attack on US soil from Western countries. This is as natural as Cambodians being more concerned and shocked about a terrorist attack on Thai soil than, say, the Norwegian bombings.

    3) As a superpower, an attack on US soil has wide implications for Western countries (many of whom are part of NATO) and indeed the world.

    4) The media will cover shocking and out-of-the-ordinary events more so than what is perceived as less so. As someone remarked in another thread: a man biting a dog is much more newsworthy than a dog biting a man.

    5) Sadly, bombings in places like Iraq are so commonplace that people have become desensitised to it and it is not seen as a shocking event. I don't feel this is a good thing, of course - but as I mentioned, the Western media will naturally put more coverage on what it perceives as more shocking events. The Western media would probably cover a terrorist attack in Iraq to a much greater extent if it was an extremely rare event.

    I'm not trying to retract from the fact that the Boston bombings is an extremely sad situation but where is the logic in covering one (slightly less tragic) event and not the other?
    That's exactly what you're doing, and your crude disclaimer (as well as your sole use of Iraq as an example) fails to hide your agenda here.

    Surely, if one event has more casualties than other it should at least be covered as much as the other if not more?
    That is not how media coverage works - see my explanations above. It's about context.

    Plus, the number of casualties does not necessarily determine the importance of an event. Of course, 50 people dying on an accidental plane crash affects more families, but it is more in the public interest to report the murder of 5 people from a terrorist attack.

    This all makes me feel as if the Western ideology is promoting that a life is more valuable than other if they have a Western background.
    Nonsense. It is Western media providing more coverage due to the reasons I have outlined above.

    An Iraqi life is not less valuable than an American life, but it is in the interest of Western countries to hear more about the death of an American life in a terrorist attack (as it has wider implications for Western countries) than the Iraqi death.

    Do you honestly think that, if an Iraqi visitor in Britain was hit by a car - British people would fail to help and be less distressed by it than an American visitor being hit by a car? The vast majority of Western people hold the 'ideology' (as you say) that all life is valuable.

    Your entire post is essentially a strawman argument.
 
 
 
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.