Why does a disaster in Asia can get less press attention than a disaster in the USA?

  • I came across this little item in the Guardian this morning.


    .........Harvey has killed an estimated 44 Texans and forced some 32,000 into shelters since it struck, a week ago.

    .....In the past few days, more than 1,200 people have been killed, and the lives of some 40 million others turned upside down, by torrential rain in northern India, southern Nepal, northern Bangladesh and southern Pakistan.


    That there is a disparity in the global attention paid to these two natural disasters is hardly a novelty. It’s as old as the news itself, expressed in one, perhaps apocryphal Fleet Street maxim like a law of physics: “One dead in Putney equals 10 dead in Paris equals 100 dead in Turkey equals 1,000 dead in India equals 10,000 dead in China.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/co…xas-america-britain-yemen


    I am left wondering why one is more important than the other as far as the media is concerned.

  • I asked this question when coastal fires devastated the Garden Route of South Africa recently. No coverage. They covered the Portuguese fires and they always cover any fire in America. The rest of the world seems off the radar to the media, until they want to use suffering there to blame the west for something. Or, lately, to try and make something out of nothing in order to trash the elected American President.


    They are a bit put out about Kenya's victory over a dodgy election result. They should be thrilled if they love freedom and democracy so much. But they seem a bit miffed and are rather issuing dire warnings about violence because the opposition won its complaint this time. They also never cover any news about South Africa's political changes or the strides made by its opposition party. As they never stopped hooting and sneering when the apartheid regime was in power, you'd think they would be thrilled now that another dictator is being given a run for his money. But this one is a commie, so you get a very weak coverage from them, if any at all.


    That the media is iffy is an understatement.

  • You see it in all sectors of the media, on a national level it's a case of if it's not happening in London then the media don't care.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I've got to the stage now where I just don't trust a thing they say. Plus their personal prejudice is very upfront. That was never allowed in decent journalism. But we live in the era of the columnist, so the chance of celeb status fan followings get a look in there. Couple this with plastic teeth and a Twitter account and hey presto - fame.

  • Sky News mentioned the same thing as that Guardian article. They were asking viewers the other day, were they giving too much coverage to the Texas hurricane while 40 million people were made homeless by flooding in India and thousands killed.


    The answer is a simple yes, but the unpalatable truth is probably that we are more interested in events in Western countries, especially English speaking ones, than anywhere else.


    Think about, 40 million people homeless. Staggering. And there were those mudslides and other disasters going on too.


    Don't forget the 20 million starving in Yemen and other places due to war and half of South America going bankrupt. What a complete mess this world is in.


    Our problems are insignificant compared to others around the planet.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Yes, and if something is to be done about it, this won't happen by hugging and lighting candles and talking crap. It can only happen with hard nosed determination to change the world by giving nations their sovereignty back and that happens by removing dictators and giving people their dignity and liberty back.


    This doesn't suit some equally stuck up nations in the power sectors as it upsets their plan for globalism and multiculturalism to stuff their already over laden coffers with the cash and resources of multimillions of acolyte worker ants. So, if all this unspeakable suffering and injustice is to be controlled, first those who have the power and the cash need a giant kick off the podium.


    Question: How is anyone going to do that when almost everyone is glued to social media glugging down every lie that comes their way? Or posting images of their latest meal or following the latest celeb? The opium of the masses is still there, it has just diversified in its appeal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.