I think it certainly is cause for criticism. That kind of world view is self-centered, narcissistic baloney that inflates drama and emotionalism over rationality and utilitarianism. I can understand taking the “well, that’s just the way it is” in discussing how newsworthiness of something like this is (it certainly sells papers and ad time), but when it creeps over into doing something concrete about it, it is cause for criticism.
Because it’s so unexpected. You don’t expect someone to set off two bombs in Boston during the marathon there, killing 3 people and wounding over a hundred more…some fairly horrifically.
And today in Iran and Pakistan there were earthquakes that have killed at least 40 and wounded many, many more. I imagine that if we lived in Iraq, those bombings on Monday would be more immediate and probably covered more in their press than this bombing was in Boston. The fact though is that a bombing in the US is going to be more immediate, and get more coverage than bombings in Iraq…though, of course and obviously, those were covered as well, since you linked to the article. As was the earthquake in Iran/Pakistan.
If it didn’t matter, why was it covered as news in the US? What you mean is, why isn’t it granted equal coverage to something that is happening here, in the US, right? So, you are bitching about US news agencies, who have US consumers and who are weighting the news towards spectacular events happening in the US but not giving equal weight to events happening in Iraq…correct?
Did you pause to see whether, in Iraq, Iraqi’s were perhaps more concerned with their own local bombings than they were about a bombing in Boston? Whether Iraqi news agencies, perhaps, put more emphasis on their own local news because of the fact that Iraqis were reading it, than they did on events in Boston?
Which, again, WAS covered…saw it on the news last night, in fact. It was the second leading story (despite the fact that I live in New Mexico, instead of New York), and was certainly tragic. However, tragic as it was, it’s not remotely similar to some crazy asshole setting off two bombs at the Boston Marathon, which killed 3 people AND injured over a hundred more, many with horrific wounds. Also, we don’t have 50 live videos of what was happening, or hundred, perhaps thousands of graphic pictures of the events.
And at the same time that was happening, approximately 6000 Americans died in various and assorted other ways on Monday, many of which didn’t make the news. And this is a problem…why? Should every death of every American be given exactly equal weight on the national news every day? Should we see those 6000+ Americans, with their stories, each and every day, equally?
Yeah, and they shouldn’t. Just because the masses would like to watch youtube videos of cats rather than learning about kids starving in Africa, that doesn’t mean CNN should turn into the Cat Channel.
And there’s a lot of truth in that. But it’s also true that “stop eating candy and take your medicine” isn’t the best business model.
Imagine a newspaper where the big headline every day is worldwide deaths due to heart disease, lung cancer, AIDS and strokes. You have to get to page 512 before it mentions terrorist attacks anywhere, and it mentions nothing about incidents where no-one died e.g. current North Korean threats.
No-one anywhere would buy such a paper regularly, and that includes the OP, because in even starting by discussing horrific deaths and terrorism, he implicitly concedes the point that there are many more factors affecting how newsworthy a death is than a headcount (e.g. how surprising it is, significant to geopolitics etc).
I don’t see anything immoral in one of these factors being proximity (plus of course this bombing is significant for the other reasons too).
Because America, **fuck yeahh! **
It’s a combination of tribalism and media sensationalism. It’s not much different from “missing white woman” syndrome. But, while the tragedy certainly was tragic for a lot of people (in terms of lost limbs and broken dreams), I still can’t help thinking how much worse it must be to live in a country where the US has greenlighted drone strikes. You know, the kind of place where you could lose a dozen innocent friends/family/neighbors to a single missile. The kind of place where the victims are posthumously declared collateral damage without missing a single fuckin’ beat. I’m such a dirty, dirty liberal.
It’s a matter of rationalization.
There are so many horrible things going on in the world that if we thought about them logically, we’d spend our entire lives cowering in fear under our beds. But we can’t do that, so we rationalize the dangers away. We read about people killed and we think, “This can’t happen to me or to the people I love because I don’t live in that country - I don’t live in that neighborhood - I don’t know any criminals - I don’t expose myself to that kind of danger - I don’t act in a careless manner - I don’t I don’t I don’t…” And that’s how we manage to get dressed and step out of the house every day.
But with terrorism, you can’t do that. What do you say to yourself - I can’t step out on the street? I can’t get on a bus? I can’t go to the mall? And so the fear creeps in. Because not only is there nothing you can do, there’s nothing you can *pretend *you can do. You just have to live with it, and believe me, that ain’t easy.
Technically, if humanity were capable of purely logical thinking, nobody would be afraid of terrorism (or kidnapping or plane crashes) because of how *shockingly *rare it is. Most terrorist attacks are shut down before they occur, and the ones that do succeed just don’t kill a lot of people (proportional to the world population). You’re more likely to get struck by lightning while singing “Oh Long Johnson” in the middle of nowhere than you are to witness a bomb going off. Well, in first world countries at least.
No it’s the “B” word. Bomb. Another mass shooting wouldn’t have gotten headlines, so that rules out the “terrorism” theory. Also there is a lot of footage of the event.
The Senate is considering a gun control bill right now. I’m sure another mass shooting would have gotten plenty of headlines.
Well, I like to think of myself as living in a first world country, and I have to say, I don’t know anyone killed by a lightning strike, song or no song. I wish I could say the same thing about terrorist attacks.
But that aside, as you noted, most terrorist attacks are shut down by the authorities before they happen. And that’s the reason these sort of things provoke such a massive outcry - because we can’t protect ourselves from terrorism, we are utterly dependent on the government to protect us, which is why the ultimate public response to this sort of thing is “do something”. Shouting that is the only way we have of dealing with the situation.
Yes, it would have. Mass shootings are never going to not get headlines, and nothing like this (or a mass shooting) has happened at a U.S. sporting event before.
That does contribute to the scope of the coverage, yes.
If you lived in such a country, the (evil) US bombing you in a missile drone strike would most likely be fairly far down on your list of things to worry about…contrary to what you seem to believe. But, you know, all those other, harsher things in your life probably aren’t sensational that the average dirty, dirty liberal would read in the media…as opposed to the sensational drone strikes. Ironic, wouldn’t you say, at least in the context of this thread. 
A great number of discussions are ongoing about subjects far more important than the one cited in the OP, so it is shameful to waste time participating in this one. 
Plus we don’t know who did it. That adds to the story. He or they are still out there.
Atlanta?
There are plenty of mass shootings that don’t get this kind of coverage. There has to be some unique aspect of them to get coverage like this. A college campus shooting for example wouldn’t grab peopled attention unless there was a huge body count.
That’s true. I forgot about that - it was before a concert in a park and not it in the middle of an actual event, but it’s similar.
What’s a mass shooting that doesn’t have a huge body count? If 170 or 180 people had been shot instead of wounded by bombs, it’d be just about the same story.
Your response is not logical, rational, or statistically-significant. It doesn’t matter what experiences you personally have had. If we’re discussing logic (which is necessarily based on statistics and probability), what matters is how many people have died in terrorist attacks on US soil vs lightning strikes on US soil in the same time period. I won’t belabor the argument further.
Have you read any of the online accounts about how stressful it is to go about your daily life while drones are constantly buzzing overhead? Because you really should, before belittling the experience. It’s not like being brown and poor makes one immune to fear and stress. Drones are fucking loud and ominous, and you never know when or where they’re going to strike. How well would you sleep beneath a threatening background noise that never stops? Not to mention the fact that, for all you know, it could be coming down into the building next to you at some unspecified time in the next 1-1000 hours, decimating you and/or your children/grandchildren?
It’s easy to handwave away a problem you’ve never had/will never have. We know goddamn well that the US would NEVER put up with that kind of bullshit from another country. This isn’t a problem that we have to worry about, luckily, but that in no way minimizes the impact it has on the people who DO have to worry about it.
[QUOTE=Rachellelogram]
Have you read any of the online accounts about how stressful it is to go about your daily life while drones are constantly buzzing overhead? Because you really should, before belittling the experience. It’s not like being brown and poor makes one immune to fear and stress. Drones are fucking loud and ominous, and you never know when or where they’re going to strike. How well would you sleep beneath a threatening background noise that never stops? Not to mention the fact that, for all you know, it could be coming down into the building next to you at some unspecified time in the next 1-1000 hours, decimating you and/or your children/grandchildren?
[/QUOTE]
Have you read how stressful it is to live in 3rd world countries where roving bands of armed thugs might shoot your daughter because she wants to go to school, or you or your family might die from war (other than drone strikes), disease, malnutrition, earthquake or innumerable other reasons? How would you like to deal with that? Seriously man, wtf? How many people do you think US drones have killed since they have been deployed to the ME? Millions?? You think that because the drones are loud (woah…seriously??) that this is going to jump them up the ladder on things folks in those regions worry about??
And it’s easy to handwave away all the REAL problems impacting the folks living in those countries when you have a nice full belly, are sitting in front of your computer chatting on a message board while downing some soda and munching on some chips, isn’t it? There are a LOT of problems we, in the US don’t have to worry about that someone living in Pakistan or Afghanistan do…including, way down on the list, freaking drone strikes.
Again, it’s massively ironic that you are harping on this, especially after you talk about peoples inability to judge risk and focus on sensationalism. You should take your own advice and actually look at the relative risks involved…but, you are the poster child for answering the OPs answer. Why do we focus on 3 dead and over a hundred wounded in Boston when other bad shit that’s much more serious is happening? For the same reason Rachellolgram focuses on drone strikes while ignoring all of the much worse shit happening in the ME…because it’s sensational, and sensation sells.
Rare events do happen, though. It’s not as simple as “that hardly ever happens, so nobody should be afraid of it.” That’s something to keep fear in perspective, not grounds for total dismissal.