Posted on 01/04/2005 12:53:39 PM PST by Williams
Am I the only one sick of the tsunami coverage? Maybe it's the obvious fact the media has no other big story it wants to cover. Maybe the idiotic anti-Bush angle they have developed. But I think it's just the plain old fact the disaster coverage has reached the point where it is out of proportion to the disaster itself.
Of course the tsunami was a terrible event and there needs to be a major relief effort. But I started getting annoyed when they called it the worst natural disaster in history. I knew I'd lived during 200 or 300,000 deaths at a time caused by cyclones in Pakistan/Bangladesh/India in the 70's.
The disaster is an important one but it's spread out over many countries. And I am highly suspicious that many of these corrupt governments began upping the casualty figures, knowing it would mean more share of the aid pie. Not that I want to become a tsunami denier, but it just seems like another example of the media's chicken little approach to the World.
Conservative commentators have noted that tragedies like Darfur and Rwanda killed more people but didn't get the coverage. But ecven without the political overtones, the coverage of this thing is disturbingly reminiscent of Scot Peterson/Princess Diana/ etal.
I think it reached it's height with Diane Sawyer yelling at Colin Powell this morning and insisting that Japan is giving more, yada yada yada. The media cares about no one and we all know they will let certain groups be slaughtered while they collectively look the other way.
It seems to me that past tragedies in Bangladesh, Biafra, etc got World wide attention for long periods of time, and lots of relief funds were raised without cable tv and without devoting 2/3 of a 24 hour day to one story. Maybe my complaint is that cable news channels become one story channels on a regular basis
This tragedy has been captured on so many home videos, it has lent itself to being perpetuated for a long time.
First things first? ;-)
I have to say, that is a moronic statement. And I think you mean 9/11. Some of us haven't forgotten the day our country was attacked.
Over here it's 9/11 ;-)...
But to answer your question, there is NO comparison.
Would you compare two jets hitting both Buckingham Palace, and Herrods department store on the same day analogous to one more natural disaster??
I read a book written by some doctor a few years back, and he said he had gone to a jungle clinic once to donate six months work. There was no news, no t.v., no newspaper, no radio for entertainment or news. He said when he returned six months later to the state, he hadn't really missed all that much that he couldn't pick up on. He was addressing our preoccupation with the daily stream of bad news and how it affects our health.
By the way, it isn't even close to the record natural diaster deaths.
1931
July–Aug., China: flood along Yangtze River left 3.7 million people dead from disease, starvation, or drowning.
I just saw a video on the SBC Yahoo DSL web page where Diane Sawyer is "grilling" Colin Powell over our reaction to the tsunami. Powell looked like he wanted to rip her head off.
He should've asked that whining, elist snob how much money she has give to these people? And how has she personally help feed them?
Ditto that.
Perhaps those who got really upset by my comment are confusing actual compassion with watching repetitive TV shows. I would suggest that I can pray, write a check, and still prefer to see some other stuff on tv.
I'm sick of it. Except for the coverage of the ineptness of the U.N. and their need for five star hotels before they can administer aid. Those stories never get old.
It'll be big until "the gloved ones" trial.
I think you make some good observations but you should not
feel guilty about being desensitized. This is a very necessary human defense mechanism. We cannot (nor should
we) absorb the full horror of the 24/7 inundation of tragedy,suffering and death which we see and hear. As T.S.
Eliot said, "humankind cannot bear too much reality." If
we are too indifferent we become callous; if we are too
sensitive we can go mad. The trick is maintaining a proper
balance. I think this is why we need a diversity of interests and activities in our lives.
I agree with you, but you know the MSM as well as I do -- if they didn't have the disaster to focus on, it would be Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, and then more Abu Ghraib. And for good measure, they'd toss in more stories about no armor, and how many Americans and innocent Iraqis are getting killed.
Given that, I'll take a few weeks of tsunami coverage.
Diane Sawyer yelled at Colin Powell?
I cannot despise the MSM any more than I do right now.
I too can't take too much of the 24/7 cable news. It's too
often what George Will calls "high-decibel, low-brow,
cable-shout-a-thon." Perhaps you are correct in assuming
that more people are becoming callous. But on a more upbeat
and optimistic note the American people are showing tremendous generosity and concern to alleviate the suffering of the natural disaster. As St. Francis said in
his famous Serenity Prayer: "Grant me the serenity to accept
the things I cannot change; courage to change the things
I can; and the wisdom to know the difference." I think
relative to the matters we are discussing this is the
crux of the matter. What do you think?
Well I agree with you there. I had not doubt the we as a country and peoples would rise to the occasion and help these people even though in due course they will forget about our help and hate us again. But that is the nature of things in the world, at least we step up to the plate, that is more than I can for a lot of other countries.
I'm sick of the media exploitation of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.