3 ms·

As for "no bias", I did not have anything sophisticated in mind. Just that roughly proportional concern would be given based on the size/urgency of the attrocit

• YZF 3y ago
  But it never really works like that for all sorts of reasons. I remember in 9/11 the media was running the footage of the planes going into the towers over and over and over again endlessly. It's still burnt in my head. We never really got much in the way of footage from Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Sri Lanka. Even Russia and Ukraine seemed to get less coverage than Israel and Gaza. The media always seems to have some sort of bias. They want to a) make money b) they have an agenda, and they somehow chart their course between these objectives. What I've never seen in any conflict is this sort of ratio of causalities reflected in reporting. These days I also guess social media platforms have a bigger impact than traditional media anyways. This has real world impacts. E.g. thinking Russia vs. Ukraine we had a lot of western volunteers travel to fight for Ukraine, and many got killed, and very likely the media of various kinds played a major role in people's emotional response to the point they go and die for Ukraine. You might have two people living next to each other, one of them on Pro-Russia social media who is convinced that Russia is defending itself against NATO, and another who is going to Ukraine to fight against Russia. You also see similar things in internal politics, e.g. in the US and other places. So the media is biased and manipulative, people are lazy, easy to influence, and respond emotionally. And the world seems a less stable place. A post-truth world I guess, if there ever was truth.