This is on two different levels. One: There is an attack going on in Mumbai, and the exact thing that the attackers want – full coverage, and even commentary that reminds one of a football match – was given to them. See what my good friend Kiran (an Indian who was in India during the attacks) has to say. Well, we might even try to understand it if the news were only locally reported, but the attackers are given global coverage, on every reputable global media outlet. Oh, someone reminds me that it is because of the sites that were attacked. Mumbai, not just the financial capital of India, but also a very popular tourist attraction. The possibility of the death of an American or European tourist makes the news a must cover.
Two: There is violence in Jos, Nigeria. Many more than in Mumbai are locally reported to have been killed. No global media coverage. Reason one: No tourist or Western national, therefore no global interest. Remember, the global media is a Western Media. Reason two: Well, those Africans, they never stop having ethnic and religious conflicts so why pay attention to it when they do it again? Apart from the fact that in every case that is an overtly simplistic description of the conflicts, there are times when there are actual misrepresentation and misreportings. We know that the media, especially television, love their soundbites, but these are sometimes as distorting as to be ridiculous. See Black Looks and Talatu Carmen for more on this.
akwaba, borderliner!how chica? when was the last time you visited my blog? i need to read your comment on my take on Ti Oluwa ni Ile. ire o!
akwaba, borderliner!how chica? when was the last time you visited my blog? i need to read your comment on my take on Ti Oluwa ni Ile. ire o!
Well, I learnt of the Jos attacks first from the BBC. Continuous coverage, no. One-off report, yes.
Well, I learnt of the Jos attacks first from the BBC. Continuous coverage, no. One-off report, yes.