Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:47 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

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.

I didn't say they had blanket coverage yesterday did I? No. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all been covered in considerable detail for years. We know what goes on there. We know it goes on often. However, what we didn't know until yesterday was that bombs had gone off at the finishing line of the Boston Marathon. So the media told us.

Had those bombs gone off at the finishing line of the London Marathon should they have not received extensive coverage because some more bombs went off in Iraq on the same day? Based on what you and some others have said so far then no, because it wasn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria (all known war zones).

[DaveO]

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:51 am  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

I would like to think that people wouldn't be so stupid as to do that.

I lived in North London in the 80's and 90's and in Kilburn certain Irish pubs collected regularly for the IRA despite the fact the money was as likely to go toward a bomb the people giving the cash might be caught up in as to toward bullets to shoot at squaddies in NI! People are stupid and have no idea about the consequences.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:04 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

...Had those bombs gone off at the finishing line of the London Marathon should they have not received extensive coverage because some more bombs went off in Iraq on the same day? Based on what you and some others have said so far then no, because it wasn't Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria (all known war zones).

I don't know where you get this idea from.
Had those bombs gone off in London, I would certainly expect huge coverage of such an event in my own country.
Stop making up things that no-one has said.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:09 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

One of the first things George W Bush did when he was first installed as President was block Noraid from supporting the IRA. Unlike his predecessor, he recognised the IRA for what it was: a terrorist organisation and legally identified it as such.

That must have been one of the rare decent things that Dubya did whilst US President then.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:12 pm  

Dutchy the fax fan wrote:

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

Not only that but his younger sister had her leg blown off, their Mum was badly injured and their Dad saw it all happen.

But it didn't happen in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, it just happened to some Americans, so it really isn't worth reporting according to some.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:16 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

... But it didn't happen in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, it just happened to some Americans, so it really isn't worth reporting according to some.

Again, please stop inventing things that no-one has said.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:16 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I don't know where you get this idea from.
Had those bombs gone off in London, I would certainly expect huge coverage of such an event in my own country.
Stop making up things that no-one has said.

I'm not making anything up. I'm just following other people's logic. Or are you suggesting that what is happening on here is actually racism? That somehow the lives of Americans are of less value than those in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria? For the life of me I don't understand the objection to the coverage of a terrorist act, no matter where it happens. That it happens at the end of a marathon in which people are running to raise money for good causes seems to me to be just as sick as it happening between two opposing factions within the same religion.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:17 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

That must have been one of the rare decent things that Dubya did whilst US President then.

Indeed. It was one of his better moments.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:40 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

That must have been one of the rare decent things that Dubya did whilst US President then.

Without 911 though, it would have been status quo and i am not talking about the rock group.Bit difficult to give it the ''you are either with us or against us'' whilst allowing American dollars to kill Brits

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:43 pm  

Cronus wrote: I suspect the people kicking up a fuss about news coverage know the reasons full well, but don't let that stop a good moan. Bombings on US soil are HIGHLY unusual and throw up the possibility of either domestic 'white' terrorism (ie Timothy McVeigh), domestic Islamic terrorism, or overseas terrorism (likely to be Islamic, but rumours of North Korea!). Or something new. An unusual high profile event will always get more coverage than the commonplace. We (the typical Westernised Brit) relate much more to the US. We have closer ties to them, we see their culture on our TVs almost 24/7. Most of us know many Americans personally, indeed some of us work for American companies and go there regularly. It's the next thing to a bombing on British soil. There is actual TV footage of one of the blasts, and huge volumes of footage of the aftermath. The scale of media focus in the US is on another level entirely than anywhere else on the planet and guarantees blanket coverage. All news networks want dramatic footage and the Boston bombings have delivered in spades. You even see a runner collapse - what more could they ask!? A bombing on US soil will trigger a much more high profile reaction. From Obama making a speech (and presumably a visit to the site) to the hunt for the perpetrators, the media will be on hand every moment and our news networks will lap it up - again, an unusual event demands increased focus. If domestic, what measures will be taken? If overseas, what will the reaction be and how far will that reaction go? Bombings in Iraq are commonplace. As cold-hearted as it is, that's a fact. Footage of Iraqis standing around debris is nothing new. Almost guaranteed to be a Sunni/Shiite attack. It doesn't make it right but there it is. If you don't like it, complain. But guess what, we've all watched it and the news networks know we'll watch it. All of the above are excellent arguments for covering the incident, for spending more time on it than on other stories, and for covering it as the first story on each bulletin. I still don't see a need for the total blanket coverage that we had last night and this morning, however. As tragic and unusual as the events were, there were other important things happening that should have been covered as well. I wouldn't have minded so much if they had something new to say throughout that time, but most of the coverage was simply a repeat of the same few seconds of video footage and extended interviews with literally anyone they could get hold of, whether they had anything relevant to say or not. Of course the events should receive a lot of coverage, but not to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Is this, for example, any less tragic than the events in Boston?

Cronus wrote: I suspect the people kicking up a fuss about news coverage know the reasons full well, but don't let that stop a good moan. Bombings on US soil are HIGHLY unusual and throw up the possibility of either domestic 'white' terrorism (ie Timothy McVeigh), domestic Islamic terrorism, or overseas terrorism (likely to be Islamic, but rumours of North Korea!). Or something new. An unusual high profile event will always get more coverage than the commonplace. We (the typical Westernised Brit) relate much more to the US. We have closer ties to them, we see their culture on our TVs almost 24/7. Most of us know many Americans personally, indeed some of us work for American companies and go there regularly. It's the next thing to a bombing on British soil. There is actual TV footage of one of the blasts, and huge volumes of footage of the aftermath. The scale of media focus in the US is on another level entirely than anywhere else on the planet and guarantees blanket coverage. All news networks want dramatic footage and the Boston bombings have delivered in spades. You even see a runner collapse - what more could they ask!? A bombing on US soil will trigger a much more high profile reaction. From Obama making a speech (and presumably a visit to the site) to the hunt for the perpetrators, the media will be on hand every moment and our news networks will lap it up - again, an unusual event demands increased focus. If domestic, what measures will be taken? If overseas, what will the reaction be and how far will that reaction go? Bombings in Iraq are commonplace. As cold-hearted as it is, that's a fact. Footage of Iraqis standing around debris is nothing new. Almost guaranteed to be a Sunni/Shiite attack. It doesn't make it right but there it is. If you don't like it, complain. But guess what, we've all watched it and the news networks know we'll watch it. All of the above are excellent arguments for covering the incident, for spending more time on it than on other stories, and for covering it as the first story on each bulletin. I still don't see a need for the total blanket coverage that we had last night and this morning, however. As tragic and unusual as the events were, there were other important things happening that should have been covered as well. I wouldn't have minded so much if they had something new to say throughout that time, but most of the coverage was simply a repeat of the same few seconds of video footage and extended interviews with literally anyone they could get hold of, whether they had anything relevant to say or not. Of course the events should receive a lot of coverage, but not to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Is this, for example, any less tragic than the events in Boston?