Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:36 am  

Heard on sky sports news that an eight year old has been confirmed dead.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:36 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The odd thing was, I switched on Al Jazeera, yet it had wall-to-wall Boston, and all the time I watched they never mentioned the day of utter carnage in Iraq either.

I get how bad planting bombs is, but on the same day, around 90 Americans will have dies on US roads, a similar number will have died of gunshot wounds, and each of their deaths will be an equal tragedy to their loved ones. I really hate it when they select something like this to go wall-to-wall and on endless loop. Clearly 2 deceased in USA is worth factors more than 50 in Iraq.

I could even understand US stations giving it saturation coverage in a way, but why does it justify taking over UK screens for days? Who makes these decisions?

That was my view of the whole thing. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and countless other places will have suffered the same (if not greater) loss of life in similar circumstances, but yet they receive next to no coverage. Are terrorist acts more tragic when they occur in western countries? Do the dead mean more to their communities if they have pale skin? Yes, it's tragic, and by all means cover it, but the wall-to-wall blanket coverage is totally unnecessary. I mean, on BBC News last night, they were interviewing a student who wasn't even there when the blast took place.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:59 am  

Rock God X wrote:

That was my view of the whole thing. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and countless other places will have suffered the same (if not greater) loss of life in similar circumstances, but yet they receive next to no coverage.

What tosh. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all had loads of coverage. Boston happened yesterday so it gets coverage now. I suppose if it had been the London Marathon at which bombs had exploded, you wouldn't want it to get any coverage either, yes? After all, London isn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria either.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:01 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

What tosh. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all had loads of coverage. Boston happened yesterday so it gets coverage now. I suppose if it had been the London Marathon at which bombs had exploded, you wouldn't want it to get any coverage either, yes? After all, London isn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria either.

one attack yesterday killed 33 in Iraq.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:09 am  

the cal train wrote:

one attack yesterday killed 33 in Iraq.

And unless you are in Iraq you will have discovered that fact via the media, which according to some isn't reporting on Iraq at all.

The Boston bombs (and around 17 additional individuals are on the critical list so may die to add to the three confirmed dead) happened yesterday. They also have a direct impact on the UK for this weekend, given that it is the London Marathon when even more people will be milling around.

Iraq, Syria, North Korea .... the list of tragedies in the world is endless. However, that does not detract from the tragedy that happened in Boston yesterday.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:10 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

What tosh. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all had loads of coverage. Boston happened yesterday so it gets coverage now.

Dear, dear.

I'm talking about yesterday. How many people do you think died in Iraq yesterday as a result of bomb attacks? In Afghanistan? Syria? People are dying because of acts like this in those places nearly every day, and they don't get a fraction of the coverage Boston has been receiving.

SaintsFan wrote:

I suppose if it had been the London Marathon at which bombs had exploded, you wouldn't want it to get any coverage either, yes? After all, London isn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria either.

I suppose you missed the bit where I said:

"Yes, it's tragic, and by all means cover it, but the wall-to-wall blanket coverage is totally unnecessary."

You'll look much less ridiculous if you actually read what people have posted before you jump feet first into a response.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:26 am  

With it being American, first the news will find out who is dead, then interview the nearest and dearest who are clearly in a state of mourning, every once in a while the camera will flick to the interviewer with their best 'i give a sh-t face'
Then there'll be the man/woman who did something brave or selfless, then there'll be the reuniting those people story, then an amputee crying on operah.
The ego centric american attitude of every thing we do and we are needs to be seen and heard, we are more important, our stories matter.
Meanwhile Iraq goes up the wall but if they're getting their oil cheap in USA it doesn't matter.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:06 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

... The ego centric american attitude of every thing we do and we are needs to be seen and heard, we are more important, our stories matter...

The USA doesn't decide what we put on the BBC or ITN.
Something like this gets more coverage than something far worse happening in Iraq because we and our news agencies perceive the USA to be "closer to home" and "more like us" than Iraq, regardless of actual geography.
The emphasis is what we and our news agencies put on it, we shouldn't blame the USA for what our news agencies tell us about.

Justin Webb on R4 this morning actually mentioned the Iraq bombing during the reportage of the Boston bombing, to try and put some sort of scale on it.
The irony was that it was only a mention and then they were back to Boston again.

The problem with our coverage lies with our news agencies.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:11 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

What tosh. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all had loads of coverage. Boston happened yesterday so it gets coverage now. I suppose if it had been the London Marathon at which bombs had exploded, you wouldn't want it to get any coverage either, yes? After all, London isn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria either.

Your "loads of coverage" is an item on the News.
Whilst Boston is getting blanket coverage which is in no way commensurate with the scale of the occurrence.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:21 am  

Fair do, add UK to my rant