[2003]

This thread is partly in response to the massive coverage the 2011 Japan Earthquake has got, and partially in response to other issues.

Firstly, I want to reiterate that this crisis deserves all of the coverage it is getting, and then some. It is a tradgedy of epic proportions, the first time we have really seen a live Tsunami sweaping away hundreds of lives on television.

However, that doesn't change the fact that all natural disasters are epic tradgedys. Infact, the reality is community spirit is probably even stronger in 3rd world countries than it is in many of the wealthier ones, where a drive for sucess and materialistic world is what many of us live in. The fact is these disasters affect all countries in the same profound way.

Why is it some get more coverage than others?

For example, the 2004 Tsunami death toll was a gradual rise, and although not apparent the scale of it at the time, it wasnt really until the death toll reached 20 000 plus that people really started to give a damn.

We dont know how many are dead in Japan, it could be many more than 10 thousand, could not. But that doesnt change the scale of the coverage.

The 2010 Haiti earthquake killed 300 000, yet it probably only got as much coverage or slightly less than Japan is getting, despite being infinately worse.

The 2003 Earthquake in Iran killed 26 000 people, I barely remember any coverage.

The 2005 Pakistan Earthquake killed 80 000 people and did not get half the coverage the Japan earthquake has got.

The 2006 Java earthquake killed 6000 but was barely front page news.

Whilst I was humbled by the press the 2011 New Zealand earthquake got, 200 odd dead in an earthquake in China would probably not get any attention at all.

Am I clueless or missing something? There definately does seem a trend toward this, and not just for disasters. For acts of war, for famines and preventible diseases too.

[Tommy_Vercetti]

Well, I think the threat of nuclear disaster is about 100000x important than any of those others to any other nation.

[out_here_grindin]

It's because the media figures that people know more about Japan and Nez Zealand than Pakistan or Indonesia and therefore they give it more coverage.

I disagree about Haiti though, that got a ton of coverage.

[buddyholly]

Clueless.

[2003]

Of course Haiti got lots of coverage, but if the death toll were say 25 000 I doubt it would have.

[allpro]

the indonesia and haiti earthquakes received massive media attention and rightfully so. in the case of japan, the economic and geopolitical ramifications are far greater for an advanced, industrialized nation which also happens to be the world's third largest economy. in addition, a crippled japan gives communist china hegemony over the east and even greater influence globally, and the potential nuclear disaster will increase public resistance to nuclear energy over fossil fuels. you have to look at the "big picture".

[GugaF1]

Very true Western media will identify more with the Western world values.it is kind of normal, people will usually care more about people that have a culture values more similar to them than otherwise.

[mure]

there was this cyclone in Myanmar a couple of years ago that killed around 100k people and barely got any kind of coverage.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by mure

there was this cyclone in Myanmar a couple of years ago that killed around 100k people and barely got any kind of coverage.

The Myanmar government made sure of that.

[JolánGagó]

shit thread.

[2003]

Just a small example but a relevant bump;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...(by_death_toll)

This sandy disaster has recieved monumental coverage with about 100 deaths, though in all honesty the coverage would have been the same if it were only 10. The coverage was massive from the start.

The 2012 Iran Earthquake killing 300+ was barely headlines for more than 3 days. I wasnt aware at all of the Phillipines or Afghanistan earthquakes this year.

People say.."oh but look at the infrastructual damage caused by Sandy"..dont those people think the same infrastructual damage happens in other countries?

At least USA is first world and the damage will be repaired before long. Those other countries probably take a lifetime to rebuild.

Sandy is a massive tradgedy. All my USA friends live on the east coast, and I am not heartless in the slightest.

But WHY don't other disasters get this much attention from WORLD MEDIA? This is not a dig a the USA media, it's their country, of course they will pay it more attention. But the WORLD media has been following this storm like a baseball game.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by 2003

But WHY don't other disasters get this much attention from WORLD MEDIA? This is not a dig a the USA media, it's their country, of course they will pay it more attention. But the WORLD media has been following this storm like a baseball game.

You still want to flog this dead old horse. It is simply a matter of ease of reporting and also the relevance to the reader.

I went to Phuket a few days after the tsunami, because the friend who invited me to his house was able to email me and tell me that Phuket was virtually untouched. And it was true, yet CNN relentlessly reported on the ''tragedy'' from Phuket, day after day. Why? Because all the hotels were open to house the reporters, the electricity was on to send reports and the airport was open to land by commercial jet right in Phuket.

There was not much reporting from Banda Aceh because there was no way to get there, even though the devastation at banda Aceh was infinitely greater than at Phuket.

Also, the situation in Phuket was of interest to all who had vacationed there, were going to vacation there, or had friends there at the time. As for Banda Aceh, you tell the world that it was destroyed and that is enough info because virtually nobody outside Indonesia has a personal interest.

Same would go for an earthquake in the mountains of Pakistan. I don't need details because I have no personal connection.

You are trying to make this to be something it isn't. And maybe make yourself look like you care.

[2003]

What I take issue with is the symptathy level for 100 human beings dying in Iran vs 100 human beings dying in USA is astronomical from most people.

Simply put, most people just don't give a shit. They'l nod and say "thats sad", and not give it a second thought.

But they will be captivated by this storm in USA whether they plan to travel there or not. Look at the economy, most people around the world are never visiting USA anytime soon. But so much they still do care.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by 2003

What I take issue with is the symptathy level for 100 human beings dying in Iran vs 100 human beings dying in USA is astronomical from most people.

Simply put, most people just don't give a shit. They'l nod and say "thats sad", and not give it a second thought.

But they will be captivated by this storm in USA whether they plan to travel there or not. Look at the economy, most people around the world are never visiting USA anytime soon. But so much they still do care.

What issue? What is your problem? It is not your business what other people choose to do if it doesn't harm you.

Whether or not you ''give a shit'' changes absolutely nothing for the dead people, no matter where they are. So why give it a second thought when thought does nothing?

[abraxas21]

sadly, yes. especially if you're white. western media will do anything to protect the lives of white people. hence why conflicts in latin america, asia and africa are generally barely covered (in great part because the western interests are the cause of these troubles more often than not).