4 ms·

Since the news is bad for me and ignoring it would make me happier, should I just forget about it?

bcoates 14y ago
Yes, probably. The bell tolls for thee and all that, but unless you're directly involved somehow or are in a position to do something about it, there is very little point to focusing your attention on it. This goes double if you have tendencies to obsess or get depressed about bad news like this.
- intopieces 14y ago
  I think I won't take your advice and instead will text my friends at MIT to make sure they weren't running the Boston Marathon this year. Everyone should do what they think is best. As for me, being informed is one way I stay intellectually engaged and interact with my peers. So I'll continue to do so.
PeterisP 14y ago
Most likely. While I offer my condolences to the victims and their families, this isn't the most fatal or most gruesome incident even this month - simply this one happens to involve white western people, so it will be considered by news agencies as more important than the civilian suffering in Syria, Afganistan, North Korea, Somalia or Mexican drug wars. If you and your relatives are safely far away from Boston, then your happiness would benefit from ignoring the news. Just as what people do when they and their relatives are safely far away from Syria etc.
- vor_ 14y ago
  Perspective is always something that one should maintain, but I can't help but roll my eyes at any response to bad news that invokes the phrase "white western people". It makes your viewpoint seem politically motivated.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    Apologies, that was biased, and I have no idea about the ethnicity of the victims. Perhaps "people from wealthy english-speaking countries" would be more accurate? I struggle to find any other significant differences between this incident and, for example, the terror-murder of 7 people in Mexico (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/9952241/Seven-bodies-placed-in-plastic-chairs-in-Mexico.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandt...) or the 6000 last month victims in Syria that will get much, much less outrage and impact than this bombing. The only difference in value of people lives to global media seems to be their country of residence. Now THAT is politically motivated.
    - intopieces 14y ago
      >The only difference in value of people lives to global media seems to be their country of residence. Now THAT is politically motivated. Comments like this sound like an attempt to co-opt or subjegate the empathy that arises in humans when they read about the suffering of their own people. It's sort of sad, really, that you can't let us reflect on a tragedy.
      - PeterisP 14y ago
        Reflecting on tragedies is useful and necessary. We, the whole world, will reflect on this tragedy a lot. But the political issue (problem?) is that with the current media globalization right now all the non-US media and non-US audiences are overtaken with this incident and they will not be reflecting on the many larger tragedies regionally, globally, anywhere else. As always. While the world mourns for Bostonians, there are today 10 times more victims in a bigger terror bombing elsewhere (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863) - will there be global empathy for that? Tomorrow, world leaders will call for action due to the Boston bombing - will they call for action on middle east bombings? Currently random media outlets in, say, Russia or South America tend to report a shooting in USA while ignoring a genocide in Africa. Empathy in media is already distorted, and I've no idea on how to get it back.
NZ_Matt 14y ago
My take on that article was to find some middle ground. It makes sense to at least be informed of the latest news but there's no need to keep compulsively checking news websites while they are in full "Death Toll" mode. It's probably best to wait 24 hours until a clearer story is available.

Yes, probably. The bell tolls for thee and all that, but unless you're directly involved somehow or are in a position to do something about it, there is very little point to focusing your attention on it. This goes double if you have tendencies to obsess or get depressed about bad news like this.

intopieces 14y ago
I think I won't take your advice and instead will text my friends at MIT to make sure they weren't running the Boston Marathon this year. Everyone should do what they think is best. As for me, being informed is one way I stay intellectually engaged and interact with my peers. So I'll continue to do so.

PeterisP 14y ago

Most likely. While I offer my condolences to the victims and their families, this isn't the most fatal or most gruesome incident even this month - simply this one happens to involve white western people, so it will be considered by news agencies as more important than the civilian suffering in Syria, Afganistan, North Korea, Somalia or Mexican drug wars. If you and your relatives are safely far away from Boston, then your happiness would benefit from ignoring the news. Just as what people do when they and their relatives are safely far away from Syria etc.

vor_ 14y ago
Perspective is always something that one should maintain, but I can't help but roll my eyes at any response to bad news that invokes the phrase "white western people". It makes your viewpoint seem politically motivated.
- PeterisP 14y ago
  Apologies, that was biased, and I have no idea about the ethnicity of the victims. Perhaps "people from wealthy english-speaking countries" would be more accurate? I struggle to find any other significant differences between this incident and, for example, the terror-murder of 7 people in Mexico (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/9952241/Seven-bodies-placed-in-plastic-chairs-in-Mexico.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandt...) or the 6000 last month victims in Syria that will get much, much less outrage and impact than this bombing. The only difference in value of people lives to global media seems to be their country of residence. Now THAT is politically motivated.
  - intopieces 14y ago
    >The only difference in value of people lives to global media seems to be their country of residence. Now THAT is politically motivated. Comments like this sound like an attempt to co-opt or subjegate the empathy that arises in humans when they read about the suffering of their own people. It's sort of sad, really, that you can't let us reflect on a tragedy.
    - PeterisP 14y ago
      Reflecting on tragedies is useful and necessary. We, the whole world, will reflect on this tragedy a lot. But the political issue (problem?) is that with the current media globalization right now all the non-US media and non-US audiences are overtaken with this incident and they will not be reflecting on the many larger tragedies regionally, globally, anywhere else. As always. While the world mourns for Bostonians, there are today 10 times more victims in a bigger terror bombing elsewhere (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863) - will there be global empathy for that? Tomorrow, world leaders will call for action due to the Boston bombing - will they call for action on middle east bombings? Currently random media outlets in, say, Russia or South America tend to report a shooting in USA while ignoring a genocide in Africa. Empathy in media is already distorted, and I've no idea on how to get it back.

NZ_Matt 14y ago

My take on that article was to find some middle ground. It makes sense to at least be informed of the latest news but there's no need to keep compulsively checking news websites while they are in full "Death Toll" mode. It's probably best to wait 24 hours until a clearer story is available.