Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Earthquake in Afghanistan
After an earthquake in north western Afghanistan yesterday, hundreds of people are dead and it is feared the death toll may rise to several thousand.
It is the third such earthquake in the region in the last 4 years.
It is always interesting to observe relative media reaction to different news stories. Mother Theresa died a week after Diana but received far less attention (a lifetime of selfless charity being no competition for a pretty face and a good publicist).
The loss of life of thousands of afghans will not, I expect, generate much of a response compared to that of Americans.
Of course there are differences. Earthquakes are natural disasters not man-made ones. At the simplest level though, it seems to me that both concern the needless loss of many lives.
It is the third such earthquake in the region in the last 4 years.
It is always interesting to observe relative media reaction to different news stories. Mother Theresa died a week after Diana but received far less attention (a lifetime of selfless charity being no competition for a pretty face and a good publicist).
The loss of life of thousands of afghans will not, I expect, generate much of a response compared to that of Americans.
Of course there are differences. Earthquakes are natural disasters not man-made ones. At the simplest level though, it seems to me that both concern the needless loss of many lives.
18 Replies and 3104 Views in Total.
i see what you mean compared to sept 11th this has many peope dying and won't get as much sympathy. but you have to think it was not natural for what happened in america and it was an evil person responsible this was jsut nature. but yes i do agree that a lot of events get more sympathy than others and more news coverage when they shouldn't.
Posted: 14:43 Mar 26 2002 
So often these things happen to the poorest people in the world, the people least able to cope, with the poorest facilities, who will find it hardest to rebuild their meagre lives.
I know what happened on September 11th wasn't right - but at least America can afford to re-build what was destroyed, and even put a pretty light show in it's place at phenomenal expense - the Afghans had nothing - and now have less.
Posted: 15:54 Mar 26 2002 Media coverage of earthquakes and natural disasters is dependent on a number of factors. In approximate order of importance:
by Incandenza
It is always interesting to observe relative media reaction to different news stories.
* Are any Britons affected?
* How good are the pictures?
* Is the location a familiar one? (eg tourist venue)
* What's the death toll?
So a small landslide that kills a British backpacker is bigger news than a major earthquake somewhere obscure that kills thousands. Spectacular footage and photos will always ensure coverage of some kind. No footage means no story, unless there's a Brit involved.
So a quake in Afghanistan? Worth reporting - but only headline news if British squaddies are in danger or are involved in rescue work.
Now you know why I describe myself as an ex-journalist most of the time.
But I will say this: it is not, and never has been, the job of the media to be a mere recorder of body counts. Journalists use their professional judgement and an understanding of their audience to give stories differing levels of coverage. To suggest 10 corpses are bigger news than one corpse, but less newsworthy than 25, is simplistic and fails to understand the nature of news. It's irrelevant how many are killed by this earthquake - it's still not as big a story as September 11th. I'm not making any judgements about their relative importance in a wider context, and simple humanity dictates that all deaths are a tragedy, but to a journalist there's no decision to make. The biggest terrorist strike in history vs another earthquake? Don't be niave...
As for Mother Theresa, she was just unlucky with her timing...
(Edited by Random 26/03/2002 16:35)
Posted: 16:23 Mar 26 2002 To put it another way...
by Red
Thousands die in Afghanistan.
The Sun websites top stories today are in order:
'Crowe's bust up with me cost him an Oscar' says BAFTA TV boss.
OSCARS - Halle's speech in full.
OSCARS - A very British winner.
Arsenal wrecked my Pires.
Britney - Yes I am single.
Posted: 16:24 Mar 26 2002
Bless!
I was simply wondering what your post was asking of the members. There were no requests for opinions or thoughts, no questions asked.
But we're always glad to hear your thoughts on the news articles you continue to post. Thankyou
I was simply wondering what your post was asking of the members. There were no requests for opinions or thoughts, no questions asked.
But we're always glad to hear your thoughts on the news articles you continue to post. Thankyou
Posted: 16:33 Mar 26 2002 The point is, the Sun's top stories are all ones that its readership is interested in. The Sun's not under any obligation to report on any particular story if it thinks its readers won't be interested.
by Incandenza
To put it another way...
Thousands die in Afghanistan.
The Sun websites top stories today are in order:
Posted: 16:40 Mar 26 2002 I didn't realise people had to be asked before voicing their opinions or thoughts on a discussion board.
by RedThere were no requests for opinions or thoughts, no questions asked.
Posted: 17:31 Mar 26 2002
They don't. They just have to be a member.
However most 'discussions' or debates tend to start with a question or similar. (See, oh I don't know, most of the other topics like this ... recent one being 'suicide')
However most 'discussions' or debates tend to start with a question or similar. (See, oh I don't know, most of the other topics like this ... recent one being 'suicide')
Posted: 17:37 Mar 26 2002 But surely we're all fairly intelligent and don't actually have to be invited in black and white to give opinions... it's a discussion board, we know we can discuss.
by Red
They don't. They just have to be a member.
However most 'discussions' or debates tend to start with a question or similar. (See, oh I don't know, most of the other topics like this ... recent one being 'suicide')
Sorry, I know this is off topic, I'll go back to my knitting now.
Posted: 21:49 Mar 26 2002
Yes, do let's keep challenging a post I made (ya know, it might say 'Host' by my name, but sometimes I can post as a real life human being too, rather than just staff, and ask an honest question) rather than get the topic back on, well, topic.
Posted: 21:58 Mar 26 2002 Okey dokey, then (assuming you're not being sarcastic, of course
by Red
Yes, do let's keep challenging a post I made
):What does "Off-Topic Discussions about Anything & Everything" actually mean, then, in real terms?
Posted: 00:06 Mar 27 2002 In this forum, ("Off-Topic Discussions about Anything & Everything"
by Joe
What does "Off-Topic Discussions about Anything & Everything" actually mean, then, in real terms?
you can post threads about pretty much anything, assuming its family friendly of course! We try to keep threads about a particular subject discussing that particular subject. This is just so that members who wander into the thread expecting it to be about x don't find that its gone way off track. Obviously sometimes this happens as part of the discussion though, like.. erm, this post
nothing to do with Afghanistan! 
Probably not.
by Incandenza
The loss of life of thousands of afghans will not, I expect, generate much of a response compared to that of Americans.
It appears that some people feel that the life of one person, lets say an American, is more important than another, Afghan. I'm not a news watcher or a newspaper reader, if I'm honest. Thats why I usually don't post in threads like this, I don't feel I know enough to make a valuable contibution, however this just illustrates the point - I had no idea that there was an earthquake until I read this thread. I had no idea that Mother Theresa had passed away until weeks after the Diana incident. Yeah maybe my own fault for not keeping up to speed with current affairs, but I found out about the Twin Towers/Diana's death somehow.
by Incandenza
It is always interesting to observe relative media reaction to different news stories.
Posted: 00:22 Mar 27 2002 Wot she said
by Joe
What does "Off-Topic Discussions about Anything & Everything" actually mean, then, in real terms?
Posted: 00:54 Mar 27 2002
See, the thing I'm not getting is that "Off-topic discussions" tends to imply discussions which can go off-topic, and I know that going off-topic is frowned upon so...
Perhaps the phrase is intended to signify that this forum is for non-specialised topics (unlike 'Cult USA, say). If so, it needs rewording, IMO.
Perhaps the phrase is intended to signify that this forum is for non-specialised topics (unlike 'Cult USA, say). If so, it needs rewording, IMO.
Posted: 09:51 Mar 27 2002 
Joe - I am asking you politely *not* to carry this discussion on in this thread. Anymore discussion on regarding site policy should be taken to email. Thank you
Now back to the topic...
Now back to the topic...
Posted: 10:06 Mar 27 2002
The deaths and injuries caused by the earthquake are a tragedy. This is no less of a tragedy in my eyes than the deaths and injuries caused by the attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September.
I was surprised when I found myself feeling that it was less of a shock than the events of last September, I think because this is the fourth 'quake in that region in recent time. It was more a subdued "Oh no, not again, those poor people..." than an outright "Oh My God!"
I agree with comments made above about the media making less of a hoo-har about the Afghan quake. I suspect that it's partly because of the reason outlined above for my lack of shock. I also have a nasty suspicion that some anti-Afghan extremists will use the 'quake as a sign that some deity or other has taken some divine vengance against the Afghan people for hiding Bin Laden. But then some people will use anything they get their hands on to prove a point.
I was surprised when I found myself feeling that it was less of a shock than the events of last September, I think because this is the fourth 'quake in that region in recent time. It was more a subdued "Oh no, not again, those poor people..." than an outright "Oh My God!"
I agree with comments made above about the media making less of a hoo-har about the Afghan quake. I suspect that it's partly because of the reason outlined above for my lack of shock. I also have a nasty suspicion that some anti-Afghan extremists will use the 'quake as a sign that some deity or other has taken some divine vengance against the Afghan people for hiding Bin Laden. But then some people will use anything they get their hands on to prove a point.
Posted: 16:14 Mar 27 2002 I agree (kinda), to the degree that we get the media we deserve. More people buy gossip comics like the current bun than they do papers that actually want to report news. Hence we get more emphasis on tittle-tattle (Crowe's bust up) than genuine news (afghan quake).
by Random
The point is, the Sun's top stories are all ones that its readership is interested in. The Sun's not under any obligation to report on any particular story if it thinks its readers won't be interested.
I would also say that the comparison with the attacks on the WTCs and the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, isn't really a fair one. Both have large death tolls, and are upsetting for that reason. But the attacks of last year were a clear statement by one group of people that they wished to destroy western civilization (or to end western support of Israel, depending on your viewpoint). The knock on effect, combined with the anthrax attacks, was mass paranoia and a feeling of isolation. There is no way an earthquake could get such a response and therefore create as much interest. Further, there isn't any real need to debate why an earthquake took place. There is a need to debate why the attacks took place and how to avoid them.
Inc, I take your point that press values can be skewiff, but again suggest that we get the press the majority of us want and deserve.
Posted: 12:00 Mar 28 2002