3 ms·

Why? If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would abo

Why? If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would about attacks in Africa? The majority of people in western countries aren't planning a trip to Somalia or Syria any time soon. They don't look for jobs there, they don't have family there, and by and large they have very little reason to care about anything that happens there, as long as it doesn't affect them globally. It shouldn't be any surprise that "major terrorist attack in a country I holidayed/interviewed/was born in" is a much bigger story to most people than "major terrorist attack in Africa". Is it not the news's job to report the news that's most relevant to the audience? I'm not saying that European terrorist attacks should be plastered all over the front page and on the TV 24/7 (on the contrary, I too think it's overhyped), but I also don't think African terrorist attacks should be, for the same reason I don't particularly want the weather forecast for Nairobi in my news. It's not that I have any particular opinions about it, of course I want them to have nice weather and no bushfires or blizzards or hurricanes or anything, but at the end of the day it's just not relevant to me.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would about attacks in Africa? Because many more people are killed in attacks in Africa?
Larrikin 9y ago
My connection to France and really any European country is about the same as my connection to the countries in Africa. Why do you assume average Americans have some inherent connection that is much stronger than to other continents?
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  You can read Reuters, CNN and BBC right? Of the three mentioned only Reuters sometimes covers situation in Africa and certain parts of Asia. So if you read or watch or listen to any of the latter two you are likely at least somewhat informed about Europe and China, though in a slanted way.
smnrchrds 9y ago
Two problems with the current state of news coverage: 1. For better or worse, English media are considered global media, because English is the de facto lingua franca. Things which are covered in English media reach global audience, while those which are not never travel outside of the local region they were reported in. New York Times does not just cover New York news, or Washington Post Washington's. They are international publications serving an international audience. 2. Because of the lopsided news coverage, many have developed a lopsided view of the state of the world. These people then elect leaders and support policies based on these views, and these have far-reaching consequences for the entire world, not just the electorate. For example, during the refugee crisis many in US and Canada were complaining about accepting so many refugees, saying that the numbers are ridiculous and the politicians who support it are out of touch, that the countries could not possibly afford hosting so many refugees. They complained about US and Canada taking so much of burden of the refugee crisis and questioned why the countries in the region don't do more, instead of sending people thousands of kilometres to live in a faraway country. In reality, US and Canada were not doing that much. They each admit less than 50,000 refugees per year. Meanwhile, Lebanon, a small country of about 5 million people, have already accepted 2.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees. Meaning that a third of the country's population are now refugees. People don't have a clear view of the state of the world, because the media presents a lopsided view. It is not without merit to try to present a more well-rounded view.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would about attacks in Africa? Aside from moral reasons tied to the combination of equal moral worth of persons and the actual numbers, from a practical perspective the short-term danger from terrorism in the West is minimal, but the place terrorism (both the practices and the ideologies which support it) is sustained, evolving, and metastasizing—and where therefore the longer-term threat of escalating violence in the West is centered—is mostly in places like Africa and the Middle East. Public lack of concern with terrorism as long as it isn't local is how we get blindsided by things like 9/11. If we cared a little bit more about terrorism in places like Africa and the Middle East, we wouldn't has as much of it to care about in the West as we do, and we'd have much less reason to worry about even more here in the future.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would about attacks in Africa? Because many more people are killed in attacks in Africa?

Larrikin 9y ago

My connection to France and really any European country is about the same as my connection to the countries in Africa. Why do you assume average Americans have some inherent connection that is much stronger than to other continents?

AstralStorm 9y ago
You can read Reuters, CNN and BBC right? Of the three mentioned only Reuters sometimes covers situation in Africa and certain parts of Asia. So if you read or watch or listen to any of the latter two you are likely at least somewhat informed about Europe and China, though in a slanted way.

smnrchrds 9y ago

Two problems with the current state of news coverage: 1. For better or worse, English media are considered global media, because English is the de facto lingua franca. Things which are covered in English media reach global audience, while those which are not never travel outside of the local region they were reported in. New York Times does not just cover New York news, or Washington Post Washington's. They are international publications serving an international audience. 2. Because of the lopsided news coverage, many have developed a lopsided view of the state of the world. These people then elect leaders and support policies based on these views, and these have far-reaching consequences for the entire world, not just the electorate. For example, during the refugee crisis many in US and Canada were complaining about accepting so many refugees, saying that the numbers are ridiculous and the politicians who support it are out of touch, that the countries could not possibly afford hosting so many refugees. They complained about US and Canada taking so much of burden of the refugee crisis and questioned why the countries in the region don't do more, instead of sending people thousands of kilometres to live in a faraway country. In reality, US and Canada were not doing that much. They each admit less than 50,000 refugees per year. Meanwhile, Lebanon, a small country of about 5 million people, have already accepted 2.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees. Meaning that a third of the country's population are now refugees. People don't have a clear view of the state of the world, because the media presents a lopsided view. It is not without merit to try to present a more well-rounded view.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> If you're an average citizen in the US, Europe, Australia etc, then why wouldn't you care more about attacks in other western countries than you would about attacks in Africa? Aside from moral reasons tied to the combination of equal moral worth of persons and the actual numbers, from a practical perspective the short-term danger from terrorism in the West is minimal, but the place terrorism (both the practices and the ideologies which support it) is sustained, evolving, and metastasizing—and where therefore the longer-term threat of escalating violence in the West is centered—is mostly in places like Africa and the Middle East. Public lack of concern with terrorism as long as it isn't local is how we get blindsided by things like 9/11. If we cared a little bit more about terrorism in places like Africa and the Middle East, we wouldn't has as much of it to care about in the West as we do, and we'd have much less reason to worry about even more here in the future.