Originally Posted by buddyholly
That is my logic, exactly.
It may be newsworthy in China, but honestly, what happens in rural China is not of much interest to me. And the New York Times probably does not sell very well in rural China. Sandy Hook was much closer to "home" and therefore of much more interest to me.
It is not the job of the Western media to give every happening in the world the same coverage. If 22 people in a Melbourne school had been stabbed the same day as the attack in China do you really think the Australian newspapers should have given equal coverage to the Chinese event? Of course not. That is not how Australians would rate the importance of the events.
The media, like any other commodity, tries to provide the public what it will buy. And these days you can buy just about anything. And like the remote control for your TV, you can block what you don't want. It is a long way better than state controlled media. Which, in theory, would be the only way to guarantee equal coverage of everything in the world. Except, in practice, it is perfectly obvious that a state controlled media is a lot more biased than a free media.
I'm struggling to understand why you are associating the country "China" with the word "rural". China is becoming an increasingly urban and industrialised nation. Besides, your initial post implied that it is the merit
behind actions which constitues whether a story is newsworthy or not, not the location. For example, you said (and I quote) the idea of...
Iraquis killing Iraquis over religion is no longer very newsworthy.
A new style of terror at a big sporting event is.
Are you telling me that a Chinese man, entering a public school, stabbing 22 children and elderly women is no longer considered very newsworthy? This can be seen as "a new style of terror"
at a public, supposedly safe educational institution, in a Communist country where the possession of firearms and other lethal weapons are extremely inaccessible. So what exactly are you proposing? Is it the merit behind the event that constitues the issue being newsworthy or the geographical location?
As for the rest of your post, you've basically said the media is essentially an example of corporate capitalism, something in which I agree with, so no arguments there.