Attacks in Egypt vs attacks in London
I realised something…it seems when some sort of attack or breach of security happens in a western or westernised country like Great Britain or Japan, the mass media take the opportunity to publicise the event and remind the public of how terrible terrorism is. However, in the developing world, such things also occur, and the media only mention such events in passing, or in a blurb, or in an article at the back of the newspaper. Journalists spend so much time analysing how terror breeds in ‘civilised’ countries, but they pay little or no attention to what might be the catalyst for terror in developing countries unless someone from one of those countries attacks someone in Western Europe, Japan, China, the Koreas, or North America. For example, when the first set of attacks occurred in London, the mass media were all over it. News reports, magazines, and newspapers had London all over their leading articles and newscasts. In contrast, the recent attacks in Egypt received none of this publicity, even though more people died in the initial attack. It’s really saddening how the media are so biased. I think both events deserve equal publicity.
The media aren’t biased in that sense, the viewership is biased. They care more about English-speaking white people than they do sand-dwelling Arabs. That isn’t hard to understand. The medium caters to the consumers of it.
Comment by Cartmen — 26 July, 2005 @ 9:32 pm
Yes, I can see your point when it comes to the viewers being biased. Even so, the media still do have a choice, though.
Comment by Jess Caralize — 26 July, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
You both have a point. Biases on both parts breed each other.
Comment by SciVille — 28 July, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
Yeah, I agree. There are definitely biases on both sides of the spectrum.
Comment by Jess Caralize — 28 July, 2005 @ 8:32 pm