Boston Marathon Bombing

[Gravekeeper]

Last I checked, that was a question - you know, an invitation to either agree or to explain how it's not correct.

So the Fox News approach then. You're not saying anything you're just asking questions?

And obviously it's not as obvious as you think it is.

How can you not understand the statement you quoted? The US media tends to over sensationalize tragedy for ratings. This bothers me as things get blown out of proportion for dubious reasons. Is that simple enough or would you like me say it a third time with slightly different wording?

[Aethian]

Couldn't we have at least given this a day before it started to get debated? Let those who are shell shocked right now have a chance to just exist and get their bearings back.

[smileyeagle1021]

So you consider what happened in Boston a global tragedy?

For the two people who's worlds ended today, I think they would agree with that statement. Every tragedy is a global tragedy to someone.

Um, we lose citizens here every day to violence. Nearly 50 people are murdered every day in the US.

Exactly, at this point we are argueing semantics over whether the people who die in a car bomb are suffering a greater tragedy than the people who die in drive by shootings... or get beaten to death... or... you get the idea. Hell, at my high school it was an accepted fact of life that at least one person from each class would not graduate because they would have been murdered during that four year period, and we were in one of the better neighborhoods. Should the news networks have gotten worked up every time a murder happened in the United States? The answer of course is no, because unfortunately violent crime is not newsworthy. Hell, working in a casino, I know it's not a question of if someone will try to rob us, it's a question of when and if I'll be unfortunate enough to be working that day. Violence is a fact of life, it is sadly expected... this is why a car bomb in Bagdad doesn't make the news, it is expected that there will be car bombs in Bagdad (just as it is expected that high schoolers will lose their lives in Reno), and explosion at the Boston Marathon is not expected.

[Duelist925]

I remember a formula I read somewhere.

(Number Of Casualites/Distance) - Time = Strength of response.

There it is: Exactly why people react the way they do to tragedy.

What happened in Boston doesn't affect me nearly as much as it does Hyena--because hes there, and I'm miles upon miles away.

Deaths in another country? Across an ocean? Distance not just in miles, but in culture and tradition?

Affects the equation just the same.

Fucked up, but basicly true, as much for americans as everyone else.

[Kelmon]

However, there is a growing trend in the media of calling it a "global tragedy", due to the fact that there were participants there from almost one hundred countries. What makes me sad about this is that multiple bombings, deaths and shootings happen on a much larger scale in many other countries every day... And it's not seen as a "global tragedy". 31 people were killed in explosions in Iraq today, and there is no public outpouring of grief and support.

I don't understand how someone could say that this is a "global tragedy". It is doubtful that any non-US media would call it that. The media in my country calls it an act of terror, and that's it. The same way it reports about bombings in other countries as well (say - the Hyderabad bombings 2 months ago. That was tragic, but not a "global tragedy").

I guess it's the same line of reasoning which makes any kind of contest in the US an "international contest" or a "world championship", if there's at least a canadian involved.

[Seifer]

Um, we lose citizens here every day to violence. Nearly 50 people are murdered every day in the US.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I could have sworn we were talking about terrorist violence in this thread.

Considering I live in the ghetto, I'm rather more inclined to care about those people than I am those at the marathon or those in those other countries you're holding up as more worthy that I, honestly, don't have the resources to really care about.

As I've said 5 times already, I understand people reacting strongly to something that happens in their own backyard. Also, please quote where I said something as highly offensive as "the violence that happens in other countries is more worthy of news coverage than the violence that happens here."

You can't, because I never fucking said it. Stop putting words in mouth.

For the two people who's worlds ended today, I think they would agree with that statement. Every tragedy is a global tragedy to someone.

Okay, 6th time. I understand people reacting strongly to something that happens in their own backyard.

Exactly, at this point we are argueing semantics over whether the people who die in a car bomb are suffering a greater tragedy than the people who die in drive by shootings... or get beaten to death... or... you get the idea.

No one here was arguing that.

Hell, at my high school it was an accepted fact of life that at least one person from each class would not graduate because they would have been murdered during that four year period, and we were in one of the better neighborhoods.

We were talking about terrorist violence. The fact that criminal violence isn't taken seriously enough is a debate for another thread entirely.

[Ginger Tea]

I think the global news responce would be more or less the same if this had happened in the London marathon, actually I'd say way more as TBH I didn't even know Boston had a marathon, let alone one that drew international runners.

the phrase global tragedy should be corrected to Globaly reported tradgedy, if a larger amount were killed (thankfully not in this case) and their nationalities varied then it would genuinly be a global tragedy.
But that's just arguing semantics (if that's the right word)

But America is not alone in this when it comes to forign events affecting nationals abroad.
Bali and that neck of the woods got more coverage here with headlines like "5 brittons dead in natural disaster" there may be 500 dead, but gosh darn it 5 of em are ours.

I do not know how far the IRA bombings got reported around the world, thankfully most had coded warnings and were mostly casualty free, sadly not all.
But of those that had fatalities, how many were reported at the time. You can look up the info now, but at the time did CNN and the likes give it any notice?
This is a genuiine querery as we got alot of pre 9/11 bombing news from America on UK TV, sometimes shunting national events out of the way, but that is not American news networks fault.

Again you can say that X ammount of military personel were killed on active duty abroad, but they get no air time.
Honestly, if the news gave time to each and every soldier, there would be no room for anything else.
After 9/11 the Manchester evening news was running a daily interview with families of those affected, this how ever was not families from Manchester who were on holiday there and witnessed the events or lost friends/family visiting New York at the time, these were Americans with no ties to Manchester let alone the UK, I think it had been running for a whole month when I stopped reading the paper, I could have just skipped the section, but if a local paper was spending too much time on non local news, it's time to find something else.

And as they were on active duty it's safe to assume they knew that (as with police and fire fighters) there is a chance you might not come back, they might be in their barracks at the time, but they are on active duty none the less.
And when you have an unpopular war the last thing any administration want's is to llist endless casualties.

But Kelmon is right when American sports are listed as World series, yet no other country bar Canada seems to share that sport.

[siead_lietrathua]

Couldn't we have at least given this a day before it started to get debated? Let those who are shell shocked right now have a chance to just exist and get their bearings back.

agreed, people could use more of a buffer period.

i actually want to kinda use that towards this thread actually. the feeling i got from the trail the thread went down after the OP, was that the US focuses too much on local tragedy and not enough on foreign tragedy, as if this is something not only unexpected but inappropriate.

it's not. just as american media focuses more on hollywood than bollywood, it's going to focus more on local events and tragedies than foreign. the american people are going to focus on events that could impact their lives more than events that won't. and, frankly, the concept of global media is still very new. less than a hundred years ago we would have never heard of stuff going on half the world away as quickly as we do now.

what i find worse than media or american responses? things like this. the internet-machine habit of taking something tragic, and within hours dissecting, analyzing and throwing out random discussions about whether or not people are justified to have their feelings or, as this one started, arguing over the misunderstanding of a word choice. i personally find that far more inappropriate than someone simply disregarding news that won't effect them on a daily basis.

also, i read the article the OP posted, and i didn't even see the word "global" used. i even ctrl-f-ed it. the word tragedy wasn't used except in a sidebar. so this thread began on words that wern't even used in the posted article. i get that it may have been used elsewhere, but it shows what i mean by internet dissection and assumptions.

[the_std]

what i find worse than media or american responses? things like this. the internet-machine habit of taking something tragic, and within hours dissecting, analyzing and throwing out random discussions about whether or not people are justified to have their feelings or, as this one started, arguing over the misunderstanding of a word choice. i personally find that far more inappropriate than someone simply disregarding news that won't effect them on a daily basis.

Your response is quite upsetting. It seems to assume that I don't find yesterday's incident horrifying. I do - I really do. However, being upset does not preclude me from engaging in conversation about the topic. If someone is so obviously personally affected by a tragedy, then I think they have every right not to engage in debate on that topic.

All day, my thoughts were with those people in Boston. All night, I kept myself up to date with news reports, hoping that they were making progress and that there were no more casualties. But that doesn't stop me from being sad about the way the media is portraying the event. This doesn't mean I have detracted from the event itself.

also, i read the article the OP posted, and i didn't even see the word "global" used. i even ctrl-f-ed it. the word tragedy wasn't used except in a sidebar. so this thread began on words that wern't even used in the posted article. i get that it may have been used elsewhere, but it shows what i mean by internet dissection and assumptions.

I didn't pluck that phrase from mid-air; there was an article on Reddit using those exact words. CNN seems to have deleted the article, but the phrase from it that upset me was this...

And as we see the flags from the 50 countries participating in this event, still flying, we are reminded that this is not just a Boston or an American event, but a global event and a global tragedy.

I wish I could link you the source article, but CNN's website has over a dozen articles on the subject and unfortunately, I do not have the time to skim them all. But whether or not those words are actually found in any article, the sentiment is prevalent throughout the American media.

[smileyeagle1021]

We were talking about terrorist violence. The fact that criminal violence isn't taken seriously enough is a debate for another thread entirely.

Is it?
Is my friend in high school who was raped and murdered any less dead than the two (or three, I've heard conflicting reports) who died in the blast?
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the reporting of the Boston bombing has been inappropriate, but I'm more bothered by the sensationalizing of it for the purpose of gaining ratings, and not because of some hypocritical double standard between reporting of car bombs in Bagdad and reporting of the bombs in Boston, because the press ignores violence all the time. They don't care about what is truly a tragedy, they care about what they can sell as a tragedy.

[siead_lietrathua]

Your response is quite upsetting. It seems to assume that I don't find yesterday's incident horrifying. I do - I really do.

my apologies, that wasn't my intent, and was why i put "internet machine" instead of OP.
other places are already talking government conspiracy and other such junk, so i was generalizing the internet as a whole.
however, while i can understand why you or anyone else wants to discuss it, i personally find it could wait more than a 24 hour period and i personally find it to be innapropriate.

I didn't pluck that phrase from mid-air; there was an article on Reddit using those exact words.

i get that, and i understand why you chose not to post that article, but it still doesnt change that you presented a discussion without the actual context of what you were referring to. it allowes for confusion and misunderstandings.

from the quote you posted, i take "global event" to be referring to the boston marathon, which is true since it has multiple participants from other countries, and "global tragedy" works within that sentence as it agknowleges the people from other countries as also being tragically effected. .

[Panacea]

OK, everyone. Please let's cool down a bit.

I don't think anyone has said that what happened in Boston is not tragic or terrible. No one has said that the members who live in or near Boston don't have every right to be distraught over what happened.

Speculating that Americans as a whole are egocentric doesn't mean that the folks doing the speculating don't care about the victims, the victims families, or anyone personally affected by Boston. Speculating that our media tends to over-sensationalize these kinds of events in the US, while downplaying them or ignoring them elsewhere does not mean that person does not care that this violence happened or believe it is any less terrible than any other kind of violence.

It's fair to discuss how we Americans react to terrorist attacks here at home compared to how we discuss them elsewhere. After all, we are not used to terrorist attacks occurring here on a regular basis. We should have that conversation, because coming to grips with how we react to things at home compared to how we react to them around the world can raise our awareness and empathy, and maybe help to reduce this kind of violence not just here, but world wide. Terrorism fails when people refuse to be victimized.

The other alarming problem is how fast it turned into "Find a brown person to blame". It took all of like 5 hours for some asshole Fox News contributer to literally call for death to all Muslims. On Twitter no less. Never mind the NY Post immediately insisting there's some secret Saudi suspect in custody.

Now the super right wingers are already claiming this is a government false flag operation to blame them so they can take their guns and round them up into FEMA camps or some other crazy bullshit.

That pisses me off. We don't even know who is responsible yet, and the sharks are already churning over the blood in the water. Disgusting. At a time when people should be coming together, someone has to pop in and start ripping them apart again . . . all in the name of the almighty rating.

I remember a formula I read somewhere.

(Number Of Casualites/Distance) - Time = Strength of response.

There it is: Exactly why people react the way they do to tragedy.

Fucked up, but basically true, as much for americans as everyone else.

Except there ARE examples of massive world wide tragedies that Americans become very in tune with: like the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the Indonesian tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti, and so on. When it comes to natural disasters, Americans are usually all there donating money and time to help out people in need.

And while the reporting is sparse, there are a lot of American civilians in Middle Eastern war zones building schools and hospitals, trying to help the folks there rebuild. Some of them have been taken hostage or murdered.

I think we need to be very careful about painting with broad brushes.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I respect that people want to wind down this topic. Hell, I was sick so I just had enough energy to answer the first time and I'm rereading this now. But my perspective (and it blew up right after this) was that it was in poor taste to turn this topic into a "teachable moment" less than 24 hours after the event occurred.

Is American media culture a bit crazy? Well sure it is. Is that the best thing to say about this event when there may be people on this board who are desperately getting in touch with people they know? Probably not.

Still, it's not like sensationalism will ever go away. It was selling papers in 1913 just as easily as it does in 2013.

[the_std]

I have to say - I'm unsure of where this "24 hour" rule comes from. I don't personally find it to be in poor taste to discuss an issue like this when it happens - I was definitely not trying to turn it into a "teachable moment". I was asking for the opinions on others on an issue relevant to a tragedy that had occured. Why is there a shelf life on this?

Is that the best thing to say about this event when there may be people on this board who are desperately getting in touch with people they know? Probably not.

I think that statement is a guilt trip and wholly unfair. How is anyone on this board supposed to know that there will be other members here who know people affected? How long might those people be without contact with the person they're looking for?

[Andara Bledin]

I think it's incredibly myopic to not think that there might be people on this forum who either were directly effected or know someone who was.

Waiting a single day to, at the very least, start getting semi-reliable news reports as opposed to the best guesses that pass for news in the immediate aftermath is generally a good idea.

The fact that the headline that was used for the OP has been removed by the people who used it should be some indication that the first few hours are a lousy time to start making judgements.