Pavel's eBar

[skalpel]

It's not true for you or I, sure. But there are often days when the headline story is some mosque bombing in, say, Iraq, and yet smaller stories muscle them out in the "Most Read" sections because most people see yet another story of mass murder in a war torn nation and glaze over. More people will read a sensationalist story of a decapitation and adornment with the flag of ISIS in our closest neighbour because it's a story with potential direct implications to their back yard. The media control what we read, but this isn't a relationship totally divorced from supply and demand.

[Donkey Toon]

But it is also true that demand is affected by supply. If the media concentrates on certain types of event and goes the extra mile to provide information if fuels demand for more information and sparks an interest.

If the media glossed over the reporting of the next half a dozen mass shootings in the US the way they do suicide bombings in the middle east, instead of saturating the news for weeks after then i'm sure media demand for the lone gunman stories would reduce.

Some lone gunman in the US does his thing (an event common enough it must get near to equaling the sort of atrocity that occured in Kuwait today) and we within days know what he had for breakfast, what he was like at school and know the history of his web usage. A suicide bomber (who isn't british) does something similar in Iraq or Kuwait and we will likely never even see his/her name reported.

Geographically there is not that much difference in distance from home, so distance should not be the issue. The media has a massive influence on what stories are going to become interesting to us.

Saturation reporting influences interest, sometimes against your better nature. It is no different than heavy advertising getting people to drink Bud Light or eat McDonalds.

[skalpel]

Geographically, no. But culturally there is a massive difference; your average John Brit can identify with an American easier than he can with an Iraqi because of simple things like names, language, social habits, popular culture (hell, even things like architecture and clothes make a difference here too) etc. And there's nearly a million British citizens living in the US, a country where we also have a huge force of working journalists and much better access and infrastructure for these journalists to gather their information than in Iraq. We don't get much in the way of Russian or Chinese domestic incidents by comparison either, and the reasons for this don't involve a press that discriminates by race. If people aren't arsed enough to read past the first couple of articles of world news to get to the middle east car bombing (because let's face it, these stories aren't buried that far down, despite the often repeated lie) then they obviously don't give enough of a s*** about the rest of the world.

[el héroe]

I hate watching the news on world events, its so staged that I think most people who they talk to weren't even there when the event happened and the reporters questions are so s***. For me world news should be kept to that small corner of the newspaper.

[Donkey Toon]

I guess it depends on what you think the primary role of the news media should be. For me it should be to report what is happening and not what they think we will find interesting.

The news should not be entertainment and it should not matter whether we can relate to the people events affect or not. Choosing not to report events because they have become commonplace, happen far away or occur in a culturally different location is not objective reporting. I dislike having the news watered down for those who want it accessible or personally relevant.

It also begs the question of how the uninformed news watcher is going to learn about the more culturally different areas of the world if the media decides not to report on major upturn in a civil war in an African country because the viewers are likely to be more interested in hearing about how Madonna fell off a stage at an award ceremony.

[skalpel]

I guess it depends on what you think the primary role of the news media should be. For me it should be to report what is happening and not what they think we will find interesting.

The news should not be entertainment and it should not matter whether we can relate to the people events affect or not. Choosing not to report events because they have become commonplace, happen far away or occur in a culturally different location is not objective reporting.

When we're talking about major events, the question isn't about what they report, rather it's about the order in which they report it. The media didn't choose not to report Kuwait, for instance, and it doesn't choose not to report every sizeable religious attack in the middle east (even though, let's be honest, it's hard to keep up with the volume). We only get more domestic crime stories from countries like the US because of the cultural tie, the physical tie, and, more relevantly, the fact that we have far more journalists and far easier access for journalists to get as much meat out of the story as possible.

I dislike having the news watered down for those who want it accessible or personally relevant.

It also begs the question of how the uninformed news watcher is going to learn about the more culturally different areas of the world if the media decides not to report on major upturn in a civil war in an African country because the viewers are likely to be more interested in hearing about how Madonna fell off a stage at an award ceremony.

There will always be reports on a major upturn in a civil war in an African country. It may not slot into the (what) four or five stories on the six o'clock that day, but it will be in major papers and even more online sources. The uninformed news watcher has himself to blame if he only drinks out of one paltry source and expects his thirst to be completely quenched.

[overseasTOON]

I hate watching the news on world events, its so staged that I think most people who they talk to weren't even there when the event happened and the reporters questions are so s***. For me world news should be kept to that small corner of the newspaper.

I disagree because then we'd likely become a very insular society.

If anything, world news needs far more coverage in mainstream papers and news outlets.

f*** big brother stories from channel 5.

[Matthieu]

The bit in bold is part of my point. The British interest is totally understandable. But how can it be justified for British media to place more emphasis on the deaths of Western Europeans over people from other more distant countries.

Because British people go on holiday in hotels in Tunisia where Europeans doing the exact same thing were (Oh, and in case you were wondering, Tunisians were murdered in that attack as well)

British people don't go on holiday in Somalia, or Kurdistan. I left out Kuwait because Brits do travel there, you know, for the €€€€€.

As for the attack in Lyon, well that's self explanatory. You could get murdered by some idiot ISIS follower in the street, or at your work ffs. It's our sad equivalent of what happened to poor Lee Rigby. It is happening in our own neighborhoods now. If you can't see how that is more newsworthy to a western European media area than an attack in Kuwait you don't know how the world works.

Everyone that is decent and just laments a killing of any innocent person anywhere in the world just as any other, but there are certain that are more newsworthy in certain areas then others simply due to the relation to the physical and social geographic area. It's not rocket surgery.

[Donkey Toon]

The bit in bold is part of my point. The British interest is totally understandable. But how can it be justified for British media to place more emphasis on the deaths of Western Europeans over people from other more distant countries.

Because British people go on holiday in hotels in Tunisia where Europeans doing the exact same thing were (Oh, and in case you were wondering, Tunisians were murdered in that attack as well)

British people don't go on holiday in Somalia, or Kurdistan. I left out Kuwait because Brits do travel there, you know, for the €€€€€.

As for the attack in Lyon, well that's self explanatory. You could get murdered by some idiot ISIS follower in the street, or at your work ffs. It's our sad equivalent of what happened to poor Lee Rigby. It is happening in our own neighborhoods now. If you can't see how that is more newsworthy to a western European media area than an attack in Kuwait you don't know how the world works.

Everyone that is decent and just laments a killing of any innocent person anywhere in the world just as any other, but there are certain that are more newsworthy in certain areas then others simply due to the relation to the physical and social geographic area. It's not rocket surgery.

I am perfectly well aware of how the world works thank you, but i'm interested in world news, not news focused on my country or continent. If something significant happens anywhere in the world I want my country's news media to inform me about it. Not ignore it or give it minimal exposure because something else happened in another country that just happens to be socially more similar, closer geographically or more likely to be a British tourist destination.

But if you like your news watered down and insular i'm sure Fox News is perfect for you.

As for your point about Tunisian casualties, what exactly is your point? If you have read my comments you should have gathered that I am just as concerned about the deaths of Tunisians or any other nationality as I am about the Brits who died there. So why aim that comment at me, when it appears from your comment that you would think it perfectly acceptable if your media had not reported the incident at all if no US or Western European citizens had been killed.

[Matthieu]

Turn your brain on kid. I had a detailed response prepared but decided f*** it because your argument is so weird it wasn't worth it.

There is a relevance factor that has an order in media, there is a reason one thing is a HEADLINE over another, or on the front page of a fish wrap before another story, the descending list of importance, even on terrible tragic events like the ones we're discussing, this exists? What do you want? Just a bullet point list tragic events all across the world everyday on a piece of paper? Well you basically already have that, except it's in order.

As for the media "ignoring" events that's utter tosh. Certain events won't get as much recognition as another but there isn't some sort of crazy agenda IGNORING tragic events based on areas. For the record (i assume you live in the UK) the BBC have an outstanding world recognized reputation for being a fantastic source of worldwide news.

Fox News? I have background in media and social geography. If you want to have a serious chat about this, well, you can't. You don't even get it mate, yeah watered down and insular, that's how I like it. Did you even read my post Probably not actually, because you've completely misinterpreted why I mentioned Tunisians were murdered as well, I said that because you were whining about it was only big news because Europeans were killed. What a shocker.

If you can't understand why a story of Europeans and British being murdered in a popular holiday destination in Tunisia by ISIS is bigger news in a British media market versus a bombing in Kurdistan, well, then there is just no hope for you.

Now that I read this back I don't even understand your point is? That certain events don't get as much exposure as others based on different criteria?

OK, we all already know that.

[skalpel]

If you can't understand why a story of Europeans and British being murdered in a popular holiday destination in Tunisia by ISIS is bigger news in a British media market versus a bombing in Kurdistan, well, then there is just no hope for you.

Now that I read this back I don't even understand your point is? That certain events don't get as much exposure as others based on different criteria?

I'm pretty sure you've mistaken what he is getting at. DT is saying how he'd rather the news be reported. He does understand why the British media has a greater interest in reporting Western issues first when there are stories of similar weight elsewhere, but he thinks that it oughtn't to be that way. And I'm arguing that there are reasons why it has to be that way and that if anybody wants to digest the news in their own order, then there are ways for them to do it (especially now with online news and aggregators). But his argument that the press plainly doesn't report some things confuses things a bit, I think, and the position that there oughtn't to be this Western preference begs the question of "then what way should it be?" What decides the order if there is a similarly scaled terrorist attack with fatalities in (say) Paris and Baghdad on the same day? Death toll? It all gets a bit silly from there on.

[Matthieu]

If you can't understand why a story of Europeans and British being murdered in a popular holiday destination in Tunisia by ISIS is bigger news in a British media market versus a bombing in Kurdistan, well, then there is just no hope for you.

Now that I read this back I don't even understand your point is? That certain events don't get as much exposure as others based on different criteria?

I'm pretty sure you've mistaken what he is getting at. DT is saying how he'd rather the news be reported. He does understand why the British media has a greater interest in reporting Western issues first when there are stories of similar weight elsewhere, but he thinks that it oughtn't to be that way. And I'm arguing that there are reasons why it has to be that way and that if anybody wants to digest the news in their own order, then there are ways for them to do it (especially now with online news and aggregators)

Agreed 100% on this skalpel

He needs to choose his media outlets better then, it's 2015, he isn't resigned to whatever the street boy sells him, or what they are offering on the plane (if he's ever been on a flight, who knows, tell us Donkey) again, like I said earlier, BBC is very good at being impartial and worldwide in the first place, so he's hardly a begger, it's not as if he grew up in 1980's USSR. (I know plenty who have they usually aren't awesome stories)

And anyway, with the internet, the fella can find anything, he found this message board no? If he's pissed about not hearing about the day to day happenings from Tajikistan maybe he should stop logging onto the Daily Fail and find a Tajiki website, because they are there, if he is so concerned with the happenings in Tashkent.

So we all agree then that there are many reasons why certain "stories" have more exposure than others.

When I want to get news that is relevant to me back in France I log onto TF1 or Fr3 or whatever in France, not some media outlet in Argentina. I also don't get mad when I wake up and "Good Morning America" on the national broadcast station isn't leading with the tragic events in Lyon. Why would they?

[asbo]

Doesn't matter - 5-4 or 9-0, gay marriage is now 100% legal in every state in America.

the first is a better match for the neutral

[Donkey Toon]

Turn your brain on kid. I had a detailed response prepared but decided **** it because your argument is so weird it wasn't worth it.

There is a relevance factor that has an order in media, there is a reason one thing is a HEADLINE over another, or on the front page of a fish wrap before another story, the descending list of importance, even on terrible tragic events like the ones we're discussing, this exists? What do you want? Just a bullet point list tragic events all across the world everyday on a piece of paper? Well you basically already have that, except it's in order.

As for the media "ignoring" events that's utter tosh. Certain events won't get as much recognition as another but there isn't some sort of crazy agenda IGNORING tragic events based on areas. For the record (i assume you live in the UK) the BBC have an outstanding world recognized reputation for being a fantastic source of worldwide news.

Fox News? I have background in media and social geography. If you want to have a serious chat about this, well, you can't. You don't even get it mate, yeah watered down and insular, that's how I like it. Did you even read my post Probably not actually, because you've completely misinterpreted why I mentioned Tunisians were murdered as well, I said that because you were whining about it was only big news because Europeans were killed. What a shocker.

If you can't understand why a story of Europeans and British being murdered in a popular holiday destination in Tunisia by ISIS is bigger news in a British media market versus a bombing in Kurdistan, well, then there is just no hope for you.

Now that I read this back I don't even understand your point is? That certain events don't get as much exposure as others based on different criteria?

OK, we all already know that.

I could also give a lengthy response but won't bother because you have either totally misunderstood or just plain missed every point i have tried to make so far. I don't have any expectation that your level of comprehension will improve.

And if you genuinely believe that the media doesn't sometimes either ignore or gloss over events then you need to take your head out of the sand.

[Micky Quim]

This place used to be fun

[overseasTOON]

This place used to be fun

Yeah

I'm going to give my liver a damned good kicking instead.

[skalpel]

This place used to be fun

This gets said every time I show up and start a conversation <grim>. Apologies.

[bodacious benny]

This place used to be fun

This gets said every time I show up and start a conversation <grim>. Apologies.

Just on this forum or in your life in general?

[skalpel]

This gets said every time I show up and start a conversation <grim>. Apologies.

Just on this forum or in your life in general?

I've never been able to put that to the test .

[Matthieu]

This place used to be fun

The world used to be fun, sad times isn't it.