Quote:
Originally Posted by imcarthur
Really? I don't think the US media collectively decides anything. They don't cover foreign terrorist attacks because it is not news worthy unless Americans are involved. The US media is too busy filling page after page with endless political crap or Brad & Angelina's latest hot story because that's what sells.
|
Yes, when Americans don't die, it is often not considered news worthy here in the U.S. and "political crap" and "fluff" are desired by large segments of the population.
But my personal experience with people in media, while limited, convinces me that many working in the media have left-leaning political ideas and see their roles in media as "society molders." They think it is their job to "sway" public opinion, not report the facts as objectively as possible.
My point is that foreign terrorist attacks (even with no Americans killed)
do receive media coverage when they are bombings, but do
not receive coverage when they just involve "gunmen" -- even when the death tolls can be very similar.
"jyl's" comment indicating his "surprise" about an "armed assault" terrorist attack rather than a bombing is an indication of how a generally intelligent and informed person (based upon the previous comments he has made on threads here -- even though I disagree with him about the bailout of financial firms
) can be swayed by the media's bias in reporting international terrorism.
Tell Americans that they might be attacked by a suicide bomber, and they conclude that they "can't do anything about it" if it happens. Tell Americans that they might be attacked by a gunman, and they think about getting a gun to be able to shoot back if attacked.