Why are western disasters more important than eastern disasters?

[Englishbird]

I read in the paper yesterday that 7 years ago thousands of people were killed and 3 million left homeless when torrential floods hit Pakistan.  It was reported on page 17 of most of the worlds papers.

Why are we more interested in the same disaster in America? I'm not trying to take anything away from the Katrina disaster and what those people are going through and I don't want this to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely interested in ideas as to why this seems to be the case.

[january_bug]

Well the Tsunami got a heck of a lot of coverage - and all totally deserved. 

Does anyone happen to know what was on pages 1-16?  It may be that something more "relevant" to "us" was going on at the time.  During the build up to an election, or when something happens like Diana's death, other newsworthy events get forgotten, as we know. 

I think it's more to do with the general image that Eastern and less economically developed (or whatever is the correct term for third world) countries are full of poverty anyway.  A disaster there, in "our" general perception, just takes things from bad to worse.  That's obviously tragic, but the contrast is not as severe as when a similar disaster hits a Western civilisation. 

I'm not for one minute suggesting that all Eastern countries are economically deprived, or that one man's death/loss of his home/family is worth any less than the same thing happening to a man on the other side of the world.  Nor am I suggesting that we readers can't tell the difference.  But I suspect the answer comes down to "newsworthy-ness" and what will sell papers. 

Sorry if this is a vague/unhelpful answer.  It's a tough one to answer well, but I'm sure someone will.  :-)

[Englishbird]

not unhelpful at all, I agree. I too put it down to what affects 'us' - seeing the pictures of New Orleans is more shocking to us because it could happen to us.  Whereas pictures of 'third world' countries are as you say more removed from our reality.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this is right or justified in any way.

Is National opinion guided by the press or are the press guided by national opinion?

[mfewell]

There is a good deal more political and social mileage to be made out of a disaster in the USA.

[twiglet4frog]

closer to home, seeing a football stadium means more to us and effects us in a similar comparison more than 500 mud huts washed away! Totaly wrong i know cos everyone is equal and we need to remember that fact when helping out in tragedies but it is a case of we are shocked and concerened and interested more in the street that is flooded next to our street than the flooded street on the other side of town!

[twiglet4frog]

re-read my post and i am seriously concerned people may think i was on drugs writing that! call it a lack of sleep, i know what i meant!

[jno]

the nearer something is the more interesting it's imagined to be. This isn't just geographical but social too, so we are supposed by the media to have more in common with Americans than with Pakistanis. I'm not sure this is actually true. I myself have comparatively little connection to the subcontinent, but many people, in Europe and America, do; and I suspect their interests are being overlooked.

But there are other factors at play in the huge coverage of New Orleans: the sight of a superpower unable to cope with bad weather, the possibility that it happened because funds had been diverted to Iraq, or the simple pleasure people get from seeing politicians unable to cope. These are - in my opinion - valid news judgments; at least, I find them interesting, and to judge by the number of threads relating to them, I suspect many other ABers do too.

[metagirl]

don't think that eastern disasters are less important, but to western audiences, just naturally less relevant.

News always has to have something that will connect it to their readers. For egs, if an Australian is caught up in an Eastern disaster, of course the Australian press will sing: "Australian survives disaster". Does this mean that the other survivors of different national origins are less important? Of course not, it is just more interesting/relevant to Australian audiences that an Australian was involved.

Westerners are primarily interested in what happens in other western countries, and editors/journalists - The Press, know this and well, thats what they focus their energies on!

[delboy3]

Example:- plane crashes in London, 2 killed: headline news all day. Plane crashes in Congo, 200 killed: barely a passing mention.

If it isn't on their doorstep and/or they speak a different language, the media ain't interested.

[Englishbird]

All good answers, thank you.  I understand about the percieved relevance and the shock factor aspects of the answer. 

But is reporting of 'western disasters' in Pakistan (for example), as intense.  So does it only work one way round?

I guess as someone has said, there is more political millage,  the press in poorer countries is going to be as keen to report western tragedies for different reasons than the uk, to show that even the mighty America get it wrong.

[Buddy]

I have been making this point for days - I am so glad someone has lifted it.

We have discussed this for years and cant imagine why life would appear to be cheap in the 3rd world.No life is cheap.

I believe the Tsunami received mass media coverage as it covered about a quarter of the globe and involved many Americans and Europeans. 

My heart bleeds for anyone caught up in any disaster.