Two minute silence

[ciphergoth]

At 12:00 BST today, London and many around the world observed a two minute silence for the 48 people who died in the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July.

During those two minutes, approximately 42 children worldwide died due to poverty.

We are not going to let terrorists cause us to lose perspective.

Comments

[ajva.livejournal.com]

You focussed on an interesting point, namely media bias. ergotia says above that for her, this is actually a political point, and I can certainly see where she's coming from. But for me, it is simply another example of people (in this case, the people woking for media companies, led both by what they themselves are interested in, and is what they think their readers/viewers will be interested in) making more of news that is closer to home. The major media companies in the world are based largely in the USA, Europe and Australia, and I expect the news sites that the people reading here usually get their information from are similarly based (cnn, bbc etc.)

However, I would expect the press in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to give more emphasis (than the bbc does, say) to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, for example, including the intifada, suicide bombings in general, arguments about withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the dividing wall etc. Equally, I would expect different editorial on Al-Jazeera and Arab world news media on world issues.

I suppose the point I am trying make is that, although we can feel uncomfortable with the bias in the media we frequent, it is also largely *our* decision which ones we read/watch. Obviously we are limited by what languages we can understand, but this particular barrier is I think becoming less and less important, particularly for those who have a good grasp of English (and of course, one can always learn other languages). We set up our own filters, and become our own editors in a way, by choosing what to read. So I do not think it entirely fair that we hold "the media" responsible for bias. We make our own bias, by neglecting to strike a balance in our own reading.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Even putting aside proximity, "child shot" makes headlines, while "child run over" doesn't; this makes some people worry more about the former than the latter, and is precisely because the latter is much more likely than the former.

Schneier's maxim: if it's in the news, don't worry about it.

I'm still not saying we shouldn't be shocked, moved, outraged and defiant, just that keeping perspective is part of that defiance.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I think there's another difference between "child shot" and "child run over", which influences people's response: intent.

I understand and applaud your plea for perspective.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Good point - and that's a difference that makes a certain kind of sense. All the same: necrotizing fasciitis.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Ah - fair point. :o)

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Hm.
True, those who are motivated can seek out a more full understanding of what's happening in the world. But here, at least, there are still a heck of a lot of people who get their news from broadcast media, which will run off together and focus for weeks on some celebrity trial or one missing person and then not bother to cover what's going on in the legislature. It's maddening.

Part of why I wish the broadcast folks would make more of an attempt to cover pending legislation or give more broad analysis of world events is that so many people will only seek news from sources they match politically. And then we end up with situations like we had in the US where people who planned to vote for Bush often assumed he supported the policies they supported, when he often did not (that PIPA report about separate realities).

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is a fair point. But do you not think people will do this anyway? Most of us are guilty of confirmation bias in some way or another. Then again, I would agree that that's no reason for the media not to try harder.

Mind you, most media outlets are either commercial organisations or competing with commercial organisations. So perhaps we can't expect too much from them. The people get what the people want...

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It's been termed the "balkanization" of the media. At least 30 years ago when there were only the couple networks people were creating their differing opinions off of the same information.

Now the information is fragmented and polarized. I'm not sure how this can be rectified.

And yes. Some time in the last 15 to 20 years the news segment of the media stopped being seen as a public duty and necessary cost center to being instead a profit center. Worse, consolidation of the media companies means that there are far fewer foreign desk reporters now than there were even 10 years ago. Coverage suffers, and more organizations rely on the same few journalistic sources.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

We make our own bias, by neglecting to strike a balance in our own reading.

That's a thought-provoking point. Thank you.