If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
If the difference is so vast between those numbers, why is so much attention and money showered on war on terror? Why is no global war on heart disease or cancer declared immediately, or why no attempts to ameliorate the situation are being undertaken on a war footing? The reasons are pretty simple actually. It is generally termed as cashing on the things in the public eye. People have been dying due to heart disease and cancer for years now and although tremendous research is done everyday, we do not hear about deaths everyday although nearly 80 people die every hour due to heart disease. The reasons of their death run deep and cover almost every aspect of society right down to personal well-being and nutrition; the government usually cannot dictate terms to fix that. The dramatic fashion in which those 3000 people perished on September 11, 2001 accompanied by ghastly images of people jumping to their death or firefighters rushing in to their death shook all of us to the core in a way that no heart disease or cancer death would. Although 27,801 children died in their infancy in equally gruesome circumstances, they didn’t meet their end on national network.
Being in the public eye is all-important. Why the hell is America obsessed with Laci Peterson’s death in descript Modesto, CA when many women die similar deaths all over the country in equally or more gruesome ways is something beyond me. The choice of cases is dubious although America’s penchant for tragedy is obvious. Everyone likes to see a story end well, more so if it is accompanied with stuff blowing up. War on terror makes for interesting viewing whereas war on cancer will merely involve boring images of sterile scientists “playing around with their pipettes and test tubes”. Also the specter of death on your head due to a terror attack seems more plausible than cancer although I am sure odds of the latter are higher.
We have also recently noted the choice of stories in the tsunami disaster. The areas with higher casualties obviously made it to the headlines and places like Aceh that you never heard before are splashed everyday in the newspapers. Contrastingly I read about some areas where the damage was equally hard hitting, no relief worker or government aid had yet reached them; leaving most of them to fend for themselves. Hopefully that very news coverage might have brought them instant attention in form of relief assistance. Little airtime on national networks goes a long way.
But it is interesting to note the choice of stories that make it to the public eye. The bigger and larger issues seem to be pushed down in favor of short-term and more attractive issues. Does it also point to the short attention span of the public or is focused on what sells more? More importantly, don’t you feel we are continuously being told what is important for us?
PS. I had written this some time back but found it to be relevant in terms of recent events. It can be considered as just another post in the analysis of news coverage regards disasters and human failings.
by Patrix | on Monday, January 3rd, 2005 at 6:33 pm | 
Current Affairs, Television . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
January 3rd, 2005 at 7:43 pm reply
The American definition of “News” is - something they have footage of. All this has been made popular by the evening Eyewitness News. Now every broadcaster has changed to eyewitness format.
January 3rd, 2005 at 8:06 pm reply
JK - So I guess basically anything without a visual is not news worthy at all? Or is it the vice-versa that anything news worthy has to have a visual?
January 5th, 2005 at 11:06 pm reply
This article seems to echo your thoughts
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/05kris.html?incamp=article_popular_1
January 6th, 2005 at 11:26 am reply
Passerby - NY Times was the first to level charges of stinginess against US paltry aid of $15 million, which was raised to $35 million before finally living up to its most powerful nation’s contribution of $350 million (until Japan raised them)