Thursday, July 21, 2005

Daily Daily

3 comments:

Anti-Everything said...

Okay I realize I wrote a post soon after the July 7th London terror attacks which probably came off rather snotty regarding the media's coverage of the terror attacks.

But will someone please explain to me how four explosions with blasting caps (basically glorified fire crackers) is the major news story on every single corporate media news cast and website? In the latest round of "terrorist attacks" there was one causality and zero deaths.

Now let’s look back at last weekend, which was one of the deadliest since the beginning of the Iraq war. In three days of suicide attacks, more than 150 people (almost three times the amount killed in London) have been killed with nearly 300 wounded. So far this month there have been more than 40 suicide attacks, which have claimed 269 lives and wounded 558. Seventeen of these 40 attacks occurred in the Baghdad area alone.

Yet did the national corporate media devote anytime to this story aside from a quick 30 second story...NO!

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

yes, I second that. Damned idiots they are. I wish more people had died, too many brits as it is. Corporate Media, bastards, all of them.

PiedPiper said...

I sense a note of sarcasm in X's comment. But he wouldn't be X without a note of sarcasm.

It's not so much the corporate media as it is the nature of the bombings. London is as Western a city as can be, and more importantly, they look and talk (sort of) like us. It hits closer to home. Not to mention the nature of the bombings: how they occurred, when, etc.

As Jeffrey Sach has written, newspapers could carry a headline everyday that read "20,000 Africans died yesterday due to extreme poverty." In some ways, I think (well, maybe just hope) that people realize the connection between terrorist bombings in London and extreme poverty in other parts of the world. I'm not saying this is the sole cause of terrorism, but it is a factor.

There is also the fact that London is not considered a war zone, although there are certainly jihadist groups that would beg to differ. People, for whatever reason, are willing to accept the deaths of innocent Iraqis as collateral damage of war, but they are shocked at the sight of innocent Londoners maimed and bloodied (when not at a "football" match).

The bottom line is, both stories deserve coverage. It is the nature of a localist media, however, that will give coverage to something that feels closer to home. That's not right, but it's not exactly wrong either.

Sorry for the rambling. I'm in a bit of a hurry.