­
Differing Media Coverage in The AnswerBank: ChatterBank
Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 3 of 3rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
Perhaps should have gone in to News / Media but please, still discuss if you have an opinion.
Yes, interesting but hardly a surprise, a massacre in the western world, no matter how small is newsworthy, massacres, tribal wars etc in Africa do not make the headlines because we're all used to unbelievable cruelty and starvation in this continent full of countries which have very little in common or love for one another. It's sad but I don't know how many generations will suffer before any sort of peace descends on Africa
I can see that there are differences in the media treatment of the two.

I am not sure if Ethan Z's treatment sheds light on the observed difference other than "this is something we see." or as Stalin said ( and he was one for massacres ) ; one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic

One is the ease which one was recorded and the difficulty of recording the other.

The Beebs heart bleeds automatically and effusively for shot journos - far more than anyone else.- but over the three days there was always fresh viddie for us to gawk at and to keep the news flash alight

I myself have civil war fatigue - [ but not butchered satirist fatigue ] - viddie of people weeping amongst a burning and razed village, wailing -we had a nice life style and then some people with guns came and burnt it down, and we sat around doing nothing beside shouting, - [ this sort of thing leaves me cold ]

1 to 3 of 3rss feed

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.

Complete your gift to make an impact