Terrorist Attacks Ignored by Western Media

[Hellken 1,658]

A lot of people have died in multiple terrorist attacks in the past week. Despite the heavy death toll in each of the attacks, they are largely ignored by Western media.

Jakarta, Indonesia Terrorist Attack Claimed By ISIS

Pakistan: Terrorists Attack Bacha Khan University

Somalia Terrorist Attack on Hotel and Restaurant by Suicide Bombers and Gunmen

Burkina Faso Hotel Siege

[MushyMushy 3,617]

Well, the Western media seems to ignore stuff like this that affects other countries, especially if those countries are African or Asian. Europe gets some attention but not much. If the Western media did articles on these other attacks, how could they convince their sheep that the US is the center of all terrorist plots? I pay no attention to mainstream Western media, so I'm curious how they've portrayed those cowboy terrorists in Oregon...

This is why I get my news (about global events and US events) from British news sources. So much more reliable.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

1 hour ago, Hellken said:

A lot of people have died in multiple terrorist attacks in the past week. Despite the heavy death toll in each of the attacks, they are largely ignored by Western media.

Jakarta, Indonesia Terrorist Attack Claimed By ISIS

Pakistan: Terrorists Attack Bacha Khan University

Somalia Terrorist Attack on Hotel and Restaurant by Suicide Bombers and Gunmen

Burkina Faso Hotel Siege

Oddly enough, I heard of three of these off Western Media.  The one in Jakarta was even the top headline.

[JP Schriefer 5,590]

I didn't hear about these attacks indeed. I agree with Mushy about the wrong idea of the US be the center of terrorist plots.

[Duke87 1,070]

3 hours ago, Mr Saturn64 said:

Oddly enough, I heard of three of these off Western Media.  The one in Jakarta was even the top headline.

Yup, I remember seeing coverage of it on TV in the break room at work. That was the day it happened, though. Haven't heard a peep about it since.

Our media did not entirely ignore it but if the same thing had happened in Europe or the US, it'd be getting constantly talked about for weeks or as opposed covered one day and forgotten about the next.

Given the for-profit nature of most media, it's easy to understand why this happens: they report stories based not on what is important, but on what is best at keeping viewers' attention. When something nasty happens near home, everyone freaks out and tunes in. When something nasty happens in that foreign place way over there that almost nobody has ever been to and many people have never even heard of, it just doesn't generate the same viewer interest. People don't care because it doesn't affect them or anyone they know - especially in a society as narcissistic as the US.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

6 hours ago, Hellken said:

A lot of people have died in multiple terrorist attacks in the past week. Despite the heavy death toll in each of the attacks, they are largely ignored by Western media.

Jakarta, Indonesia Terrorist Attack Claimed By ISIS

Pakistan: Terrorists Attack Bacha Khan University

Somalia Terrorist Attack on Hotel and Restaurant by Suicide Bombers and Gunmen

Burkina Faso Hotel Siege

I think you need to clarify what you mean by western media.  Both CBC and BBC had extensive coverage of each.  Maybe you should try some international news sites instead of the local stuff.  BTW, six Canadians were murdered in the Burkina Faso attack on the Hotel Splendide.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

Largely ignored? I heard about these regularly here in the "West", especially from NPR. The West loves to harp on the threat of Islamic terrorism. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

On 1/23/2016 at 3:26 PM, Duke87 said:

Yup, I remember seeing coverage of it on TV in the break room at work. That was the day it happened, though. Haven't heard a peep about it since.

Our media did not entirely ignore it but if the same thing had happened in Europe or the US, it'd be getting constantly talked about for weeks or as opposed covered one day and forgotten about the next.

Given the for-profit nature of most media, it's easy to understand why this happens: they report stories based not on what is important, but on what is best at keeping viewers' attention. When something nasty happens near home, everyone freaks out and tunes in. When something nasty happens in that foreign place way over there that almost nobody has ever been to and many people have never even heard of, it just doesn't generate the same viewer interest. People don't care because it doesn't affect them or anyone they know - especially in a society as narcissistic as the US.

This sort of tangentially reminds me of another George Carlin routine:

"Explosions are fun!  And hey!  The closer the explosion is to your house, the more fun it is!  Did you ever notice that?  Sometimes you have the TV on and you're working around the house, some guy comes on television and says 'Six thousand people were killed in an explosion today!'  You say: 'where, where?'  He says:  'In Pakistan!'  You say:  'Oh, f*** Pakistan!  Too far away to be any fun!'  But if he says it happened in your hometown, you'll say 'Wow!  Hot sh**!  Come on, Dave, let's go look at the bodies!'"

[Hellken 1,658]

On 1/23/2016 at 6:27 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

I think you need to clarify what you mean by western media.  Both CBC and BBC had extensive coverage of each.  Maybe you should try some international news sites instead of the local stuff.  BTW, six Canadians were murdered in the Burkina Faso attack on the Hotel Splendide.

"Ignore" is probably a wrong choice of words. Rather than ignore, as pointed out above, perhaps it's better to say that if the same thing happened in Europe, no doubt it would have been talked about for weeks and it would have been on the headlines. You usually only read about these on the back pages of the newspapers.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

25 minutes ago, Hellken said:

"Ignore" is probably a wrong choice of words. Rather than ignore, as pointed out above, perhaps it's better to say that if the same thing happened in Europe, no doubt it would have been talked about for weeks and it would have been on the headlines. You usually only read about these on the back pages of the newspapers.

I don't take newspapers as they are mostly garbage advertising and bad writing.  I get my news from the various news sites on the net.  All of the events you noted were top of the page events.  And I use Adblock plus.

[Munchiez 74]

The Western media caters to western ideals. A lot of it is nonsense. I don't particularly like main stream media at all. I do enjoy smaller indie news reporting services and would trust, for international events, the likes of BBC and sometimes even Russia Today. I'll take first hand accounts of people on social media, at times, over the main stream media. Why? The reason is because some people who use social media as a news outlet like Twitter or Facebook are usually people who are at the location. News agencies scramble to get something on the TV and radio, whilst on the ground people can get the news out much faster via smartphones and social media.

That being said, I have heard about these stories on media outlets like Fox News and NBC. However, not to the extent like I would on Russia Today or BBC World News. In regards to Russia Today, I don't feel like they're too much Russian biased to trust, after all they do locations globally. One being in Washington, D.C and in New York as well as in London. Their website and Russian only site do sometimes embellish a tad when talking about Russian superiority and military strength, as one would anticipate.

Speaking of narcissistic attitudes circulating among Americans, I would say it is NOT just isolated to The United States. I've seen some of the same attitudes in Britain and in Canada. Not saying they are at the same levels of the US, but they do show some of the same "Oh it's not here so it's not THAT BAD" type ideals.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

Screw you! A TV reporter attacking a disrespectful refugee is far worse.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Getting a balanced newsfeed from anyone is virtually impossible.  Even people making reports on the social media are biased by their point of view.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

It just seems to me that the large media outlets, *cough*BBC*cough* seem to shy away from anything that is directly caused by people who aren't white, heterosexual men. Reporting about the fact that the number of rapes in Sweden have gone up by 1400% since the migrant crisis begun simply wouldn't be politically correct, and therefore you can't talk about it. It's hopeless.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think it is up to the Swedish media to report on social events of that nature.  Why should national carriers such as BBC, CBC, or the three main U.S. networks care when there is so much other garbage to report.  If they had an easily accessible English site, I'd have a look at it.  I have no Scandinavian languages whatsoever.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

Of course you're right, it's not what I meant. Wasn't being clear enough. SVT (Sveriges Television) haven't said a thing about it either. Should've been clear about my statement there.

 

[CapTon 592]

The media in the U.S. is so convoluted. Honestly, all they care about are enforcing left-wing ideology to undermine the right (and only occasionally vice versa). They could care less about reporting news for the benefit of the viewer.

[Mr. Bones 14]

12 minutes ago, CapTon said:

The media in the U.S. is so convoluted. Honestly, all they care about are enforcing left-wing ideology to undermine the right (and only occasionally vice versa). They could care less about reporting news for the benefit of the viewer.

Don't know if that is sarcasm but it's surely somewhat true.

[hbn 244]

You'll find it nigh impossible to find an unbiased news source. Every one, including reporters, journalists, broadcasters, have opinions. As opinionated and on the fence they may try to be, their own opinions will find some way of seeping through.

Perception and the opinions of viewers will also skew their perception of bias as well. A conservative will see Fox News as centrist and correct and BBC as leftist. A socialist may see a slight right-wing bias in the BBC and the Fox News as complete nut cases. Russia Today will be seen by a lot as having an anti-Western pro-Putin or Al Jazeera as having an anti-Western slightly pro-Islam outlook. Others will see it as being more trustworthy and balanced because it's an outside look or something like that.

If you're left leaning, you will see a lot of news sources as right wing and vice versa. Hell even I've perceived the US as being more conservative in outlook, politically and in the media than Britain in a lot of places. Democrat Party for example, would be considered centrist in the UK. In the US it seems to be considered centre-left. Liberalism isn't so easy to define on the spectrum since there are multiple stances such as social liberalism, which is considered leftist in it's viewpoint and fiscal liberalism which would drag it to the right because it advocates for the free market. Not saying things are as balanced in the UK though but because there are a larger amount of parties in mainstream politics than the two-party system going on in the US, the spectrum is a lot wider. Hell since New Labour even the Labour Party is no longer considered left wing over here and yet sometimes it gets criticised for it's policies being too left. And as much as many will disagree with David Cameron, the Conservatives under his leadership seem more left wing in some of their social policies than they ever have in their history... even if Iain Duncan Smith is a ****

Then there is the press which tend to have political affiliations. The Sun and the Daily Mail are usually discounted amongst a lot because of their tabloid journalism designed to provoke reactions more than tell the truth. The Guardian on the other hand seems left-wing and quick to lecture. Mind you I tend to ignore the papers anyway. Sometimes I might end up on one of their websites for an article I've been linked to but I don't buy them. Only papers worth buying from time to time is the local rag but even that has poor editing standards and spelling mistakes galore.

I get most of my news off the internet these days but I've seen the Pakistan University Attack reported, a Boko-Haram suspected Cameroon attack but I can't recall the other three reported.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

CNN had continuous television coverage and analysis of the Jakarta attacks with their own reporters at the scene, as CNN's Indonesian bureau was formerly based out of the Skyline Building, one of the specific major targets of the attack.

The other attacks were also reported, but they were largely seen by reporters and media consumers here as just-more-of-the-same-over-there-ho-hum, and Donald Trump doesn't like others competing for headlines.

Interestingly, CNN's fellow cable competitor Al Jazeera America is shutting down after years of abysmal ratings in the U.S.  Aside from being weighed down by a name that doesn't play happily to American audiences in today's political climate, Al Jazeera America apparently couldn't figure out how to cater and deliver to American audiences in an era when cable television is stagnating and Americans are picking-'n'-choosing their news sources and even their individual news stories à la carte online.

 

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

13 hours ago, __B said:

It just seems to me that the large media outlets, *cough*BBC*cough* seem to shy away from anything that is directly caused by people who aren't white, heterosexual men. Reporting about the fact that the number of rapes in Sweden have gone up by 1400% since the migrant crisis begun simply wouldn't be politically correct, and therefore you can't talk about it. It's hopeless.

That number is total nonsense. Rape hasn't gone up 1400% since the Migrant crisis began. The only times I came across that number was compared to 1975. Since 1975 the number of rapes has increased with 1400%. 

Even then though, that number is extremely contentious. For one, I can only find that number on sites that have a rather obvious bias against immigrants. Second, crime statistics, especially rape statistics, are notoriously unreliable and incomparable. For one, the legal definition of rape has changed since the 70's in Sweden, making more actions 'rape' and the way those get counted have also changed in a way that inflates the number. That makes the 1400% increase not actually 1400% and it makes the idea that Sweden is the second when it comes to 'most raped women in the world' also kinda ridiculous. 

Also, as for your contention that the BBC doesn't cover rape in Sweden: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

[Sabretooth78 808]

12 hours ago, hbn said:

Perception and the opinions of viewers will also skew their perception of bias as well. A conservative will see Fox News as centrist and correct and BBC as leftist. A socialist may see a slight right-wing bias in the BBC and the Fox News as complete nut cases. Russia Today will be seen by a lot as having an anti-Western pro-Putin or Al Jazeera as having an anti-Western slightly pro-Islam outlook. Others will see it as being more trustworthy and balanced because it's an outside look or something like that.

And when you strive to have no political affiliation, it's not an issue of left vs. right but rather a perception as to how close to the cow pat you are.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Try this on for major media coverage.

The second part of this investigative article will be on the CBC's National tonight.

I use a grain of salt with both CBC and BBC coverages as each has its own biases.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

Oh dear. Thank you, @LexusInfernus for notifying me of the typo. What I meant to say was 140%. I agree 1400% is way too much to be realistic.