3 ms·

Both media reports are vanity. They don't impact the reader, don't change society and have no repercussions. Both are read for (different) emotional value. Peop

Both media reports are vanity. They don't impact the reader, don't change society and have no repercussions. Both are read for (different) emotional value. People don't change their life or opinion because of either of them.

runarberg 3y ago
While I agree there is a fair amount of indifference when it comes to consuming media. However stating it as zero effect is far from true. There are several examples of powerful journalism having profound effects on the general public. And repeated coverage has been demonstrated to be capable of changing opinions. In the case of the refugee boat—but not so much the submarine—it occured because of a policy choice of the leaders of many news observers. These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these. And media coverage has been shown in the past to be able to influence leaders in making some policy changes.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Refugees die in the Mediteranian in large numbers for more than 30 years [0]. With ample media coverage for decades and no policy changes. So I stand with my previous argument of "People don't change their life or opinion because of either of them." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_incidents_on_the_Mediterranean_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_inciden...
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it? On the one hand we have people who fear they will come and increasingly vote right wing and succesfully pressured sea rescue organisations in not operating in the mediterran sea anymore and on the other hand we have people donating lots of money to private sea rescue organisations that do operate there and also rescue refugees.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      "But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it?" Not in the direction the poster thought they would/should change.
  - nickserv 3y ago
    There have been policy changes, and it's now more difficult to get into Europe. It seems like these policies are also making the crossing more dangerous, leading to more deaths. I would argue voters are aware of what's going on, and approve of the situation. In at least some of the countries directly involved (UK, France, Italy), the majority is calling for more restrictive immigration policies.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      A lot of the media coverage around refugees is actually negative. This includes overblown threats of terrorism, strain on the social system, crime, effects on the job market, etc. (See one of my earlier post’s sibling as an example of what general population believes about refugees as a result of the biased media coverage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36443172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36443172). Note that most (almost all) of this negative media coverage has no basis in reality. The only connection between refugees and terrorism is the fact that many of them are fleeing real terrorist threats, there is no correlation between crime and refugees which cannot be explained better by poverty, increased immigration has been shown to have positive effects on the job market, etc. Despite this, the media keeps churning out the negative coverage, and the policy choices by European leaders reflect that. The lack of media coverage of the human tragedy of the Andriana is therefor pretty consistent. In the media refugees are a burden, not humans lives which deserve empathy. The coverage reflects this, so does public opinion, and ultimately, so does policy. This is overall a really sad situation in Europe.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Yes but the argument of the poster was that the media coverage would bring pressure and exactly the opposite changes "These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these"
      - runarberg 3y ago
        I think you might be misunderstanding. The complaint is that the media isn’t covering this like they should, and my realization is that it is precisely this lack of coverage which our policy reflects. Like if the media coverage was empathetic to the lives lost in this tragedy, and if it had been so in the past, the public opinion towards refugees and the policy made by our leaders would perhaps be different, and this whole disaster would have been avoided. But that’s not the world we live in. European border and refugee policy reflects the media’s attitude of billionaires dying in a submarine disaster is worth the coverage, but not potentially the top 50 worst maritime disaster in history.
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies or media consumers. Immigration politics are among the most important issues to voters in certain western countries for very good reasons. These issues are extremely economically impactful, massively violent, and extremely exploitative to all working class people across the globe.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "immigration politics don't affect societies" If you think that, I'd disagree with you.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Why would you think he or she thinks that, if the full quote is this: "It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies "
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Why would the poster think that I think that?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Because you wrote it?
        KingOfCoders 3y ago
        I wrote the articles are vanity. "Apples are vain." The poster wrote thinking that immigration politics doesn't affect societies is vain. "Oranges are vain." "Because you wrote it?" You (?) "Apples and Oranges are the same"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
fishoutofth 3y ago
I think people focus too much on media reporting in this thread. The resources allocated for this rescue operation vs for the refugee boat is much more poignant.

runarberg 3y ago

While I agree there is a fair amount of indifference when it comes to consuming media. However stating it as zero effect is far from true. There are several examples of powerful journalism having profound effects on the general public. And repeated coverage has been demonstrated to be capable of changing opinions. In the case of the refugee boat—but not so much the submarine—it occured because of a policy choice of the leaders of many news observers. These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these. And media coverage has been shown in the past to be able to influence leaders in making some policy changes.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
Refugees die in the Mediteranian in large numbers for more than 30 years [0]. With ample media coverage for decades and no policy changes. So I stand with my previous argument of "People don't change their life or opinion because of either of them." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_incidents_on_the_Mediterranean_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_inciden...
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it? On the one hand we have people who fear they will come and increasingly vote right wing and succesfully pressured sea rescue organisations in not operating in the mediterran sea anymore and on the other hand we have people donating lots of money to private sea rescue organisations that do operate there and also rescue refugees.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    "But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it?" Not in the direction the poster thought they would/should change.
- nickserv 3y ago
  There have been policy changes, and it's now more difficult to get into Europe. It seems like these policies are also making the crossing more dangerous, leading to more deaths. I would argue voters are aware of what's going on, and approve of the situation. In at least some of the countries directly involved (UK, France, Italy), the majority is calling for more restrictive immigration policies.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    A lot of the media coverage around refugees is actually negative. This includes overblown threats of terrorism, strain on the social system, crime, effects on the job market, etc. (See one of my earlier post’s sibling as an example of what general population believes about refugees as a result of the biased media coverage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36443172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36443172). Note that most (almost all) of this negative media coverage has no basis in reality. The only connection between refugees and terrorism is the fact that many of them are fleeing real terrorist threats, there is no correlation between crime and refugees which cannot be explained better by poverty, increased immigration has been shown to have positive effects on the job market, etc. Despite this, the media keeps churning out the negative coverage, and the policy choices by European leaders reflect that. The lack of media coverage of the human tragedy of the Andriana is therefor pretty consistent. In the media refugees are a burden, not humans lives which deserve empathy. The coverage reflects this, so does public opinion, and ultimately, so does policy. This is overall a really sad situation in Europe.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Yes but the argument of the poster was that the media coverage would bring pressure and exactly the opposite changes "These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these"
    - runarberg 3y ago
      I think you might be misunderstanding. The complaint is that the media isn’t covering this like they should, and my realization is that it is precisely this lack of coverage which our policy reflects. Like if the media coverage was empathetic to the lives lost in this tragedy, and if it had been so in the past, the public opinion towards refugees and the policy made by our leaders would perhaps be different, and this whole disaster would have been avoided. But that’s not the world we live in. European border and refugee policy reflects the media’s attitude of billionaires dying in a submarine disaster is worth the coverage, but not potentially the top 50 worst maritime disaster in history.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies or media consumers. Immigration politics are among the most important issues to voters in certain western countries for very good reasons. These issues are extremely economically impactful, massively violent, and extremely exploitative to all working class people across the globe.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
"immigration politics don't affect societies" If you think that, I'd disagree with you.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Why would you think he or she thinks that, if the full quote is this: "It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies "
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Why would the poster think that I think that?
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Because you wrote it?
      - KingOfCoders 3y ago
        I wrote the articles are vanity. "Apples are vain." The poster wrote thinking that immigration politics doesn't affect societies is vain. "Oranges are vain." "Because you wrote it?" You (?) "Apples and Oranges are the same"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

fishoutofth 3y ago

I think people focus too much on media reporting in this thread. The resources allocated for this rescue operation vs for the refugee boat is much more poignant.