This really bothers me

It's simply the mass-media at work. They cover what will bring more views, and a terrorist attack is a lot more (excuse the expression) "interesting" than an Earthquake. It's wrong to see it this way, because both are tragedies, but the Mass-Media only cares about what sells. People will feel sad about tragedies regardless of where they happen, so it's not exactly like they have a preference (unless it affects their home country), but they're just not aware that these tragedies are taking place.

With an Earthquake, we know the cause is natural, people died, it's sad. Probably just spend 15 seconds on the News channel with some images of the damages. Now they've got 23 hours 59 minutes and 45 seconds of time to fill. A terrorist attack in Boston however, the Mass-Media have enough story material for a week, and room to speculate on the possible culprits so the pundits can push for their anti-X anti-Y agenda and garner more views.

It's the sad reality of today's society.


Edit: Well that didn't take long ... GOP Blames Boston Marathon Attack on Muslims, Immigrants
Is it wrong that I'm laughing at how predictable these madmen are? (referring to the GOP)

 

Perhaps it is the difference between what they call a act of God & a Man Made tragedy, maybe we expect people to die in a earthquake or a tsunami & we cannot do any thing about these deaths as tragic as they are, but a Man Made Terrorist Attack we can, I agree both types of Deaths are very sad indeed.

 

I didn't even hear about 40 dying where was the earth quake?

---------- Post added 17th Apr 2013 at 12:24 AM ----------

I don't think it's Because it's more interesting I think it's BECUASE it is terrorists alkida (muslims) or the guys down the street. The fact that it was MURDER tends to be a bigger deal. An earth quake is natural and it's terrible TERRIBLE what happened obviously but it could not have been stopped. This was murder this was a vicious attack on Inocent people and children. Again as sad as it is that that happened with the earthquake it couldn't have been stopped it was a natural disaster. The bombing was man made...... It was cold blooded murder it was a cowardice attack and evil. It's just so shocking..... When the bomb went off when the Marathon was live that was people dying.....

 

Ya but in America it's less common so it's a bigger deal. I'm not saying it's not important I'm saying its just simply not going to get as much attention then murder will.

 

I see what you are saying I'm not saying it's not Inportant I'm saying that this is the way the media is

 

As I've said in my first post, they cover the stories that will get them viewers and enough materials that they can extend the story for a period of time, and leave some room to push for their respective agendas. It's sensationalism, it gets them viewers, it gets them more money, and they get to push the network's agenda. Win/Win for the network.

Right now, the GOP is blaming the bombing on Muslims, because it works to rally up their voters through fear mongering (a common tactic used by the Right Wing). That's just how US Politics and mass media works. They do not care about what is right or wrong, only what will serve them best for their purpose.

 

Because that's what gathers the most attention and best ratings for the news stations.

Want to know why cats stuck in trees don't get on the news all the time? Because it isn't exciting. People don't want to watch that all the time.

Yes, deaths are deaths, and the earthquake is certainly sad, but the bombing rallies the whole "someone attacked OUR country" feeling, that American patriotism is so well known for.

 

The comparison being made was not that deaths = cats in trees.

The comparison being made was that the interest level of cats in trees <<<<<<< interest of earthquake killing 40 people <<< interest of the Boston bombing. At least for your everyday American who follows the daily news.

 

Possible to some extent, but to change that is to change where those media get their financing. Currently in the U.S, the major news outlets are owned by only 6 or 8 giant corporations, whereas in the past they were owned by 30+ companies.

I think the solution pushed by Rafael Correa (President of the Republic of Ecuador) is not a bad idea, in that a 1/3 of the channels in the country should be owned by private companies, another 1/3 owned by the people and the remaining 1/3 by the government. It at least helps to keep a certain "equality" and allow people to be faced with arguments and views from both sides, rather than hearing strictly what one side wants to say while the others are ignored or shunned.

 

Oh, I didn't say it was right - I'm saying that's how it is.

I'm also not saying that it's absolutely futile to change the media.

But to change out the way the media operates would require a globally-scaled rework of basically the way our society at large operates, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon nor overnight.

This is why people do/should be teaching to take what the media says with a grain of salt. The information you can get is good, if you critically think about what you are (and aren't) being handed. It's a far easier solution than reworking all of society.

 

In my perspective, every life is important, no matter where they are or what happens to them. Everyone that turns out evil was once a little innocent child. Sometimes there might be a reason for why people turn out to be evil and it might not be 100% their fault like having a sad childhood or dramatic events that lead them onto doing bad things. I'm not saying that they are not responsible for their own actions, but everyone makes wrong decisions, no matter big or small. Sometimes we have to evaluate ourselves too, for allowing these people grow in our society, and if there can be anything done to stop them? As for the natural disasters, we can see how vulnerable and weak creatures we are compared to the nature world around us. We have nothing to do about it if we already tried our best, and sometimes we just have to let go and let nature take its course. Both of the tragedies that happened can't be denied to be very sad, and I agree that the people didn't deserve to die at all, but I'm just trying to look in another perspective of the events. I have realised that our lives can be taken away so easily although we think that we are advanced civilisations. The most important meaning of our lives is to take the most out of it and enjoy every part of it you can and sometimes let go the things that have already passed and maybe try to change things before its too late. I'm really sorry for the deaths that have recently occurred and hope that everyone can also look at how I see things.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to propose. One person saying one thing one time is not going to change the way the media operates, especially considering the fact that the media is dependent on social context (i.e. the people who use the media) and the economy (how they get funded) at the very least.

 

It bothers me too, but that's how it is. And this is why I don't watch TV anymore. I think most of the news channels are biased and the ones that try not to be are the ones we never hear from. Especially western media, you'll hear the same propaganda from them, it doesn't matter which one of the hundreds of channels you listen to. Just like RT is anti-US and CNN, BBC are probably anti Russia, or like you won't hear an Israeli newspaper side with Palestinians. There's nothing you can do about that. If people are genuinely want to know what is happening in the world, they'll find out by browsing the internet but definitely not from their local TV channels. This is why I read at least five different news sites from five different countries when I want to find out about the news.