The Daily Mass Shootings thread

Agreed BBJ... it seems some lives carry more 'weight' reporting wise than others.
 
CDX_EIRE - 31/7/2016 23:18

BBJ - 30/7/2016 11:16

And of course a lot of stuff is not reported. Or when it is, it's presented in a way that it escapes our attention.
For example, how many of us were really aware, when it was going on, of what happened in Rwanda in the 1990s?
This was a country about the same physical size as Wales where it is reckoned that up to one million people were murdered in a period of around three months.
But it was a long way away and didn't particularly impact on us.
On the other hand, there were 64 deaths relating to the "troubles" in Northern Ireland during the whole of 1994 (the same years as the Rwandan genocide).
You can be pretty sure that there was more hand-wringing over that in Britain and Ireland than on the appalling events in Rwanda.
Click to expand...

Again though that goes back to the point about coverage. I think in this era of technology it wouldn't go without huge media attention and the UN would intervene much faster. Same with the stuff in the Balkans I'd imagine.

I'm too young to remember any of those things above but I would imagine it would get better coverage. Having said that do we really know what is happening in Syria?
Click to expand...

I remember Rwanda. There was plenty of media coverage but the powers that be didn't seem to care. By the time pressure had built up for action, there were more than a million dead.

The awful truth is that the slaughter in Rwanda didn't have any impact on Western business interests so nothing was done. If they were fighting over an oil refinery, it would have been different.

The internet has sped up the news cycle but the world is the same. If the Rwandan slaughter played out again, I don't think we'd be any faster to intervene.
 
So here's a question.

That latest Texas shooting as BB says left 1 dead and four injured. Not really a massacre or anything was it? Yet it's one of the main news stories today on this side of the world and probably other parts of the word too.

Is it just because mass shootings are "in" at the moment that something relatively small is getting that much coverage? I've heard worse shooting stories from the UK and Ireland recently (and no doubt there has been in the rest of Europe too) yet I doubt much of it gets the coverage the US does when something happens.

I guess the media just want to jump on anything that sounds like gunfire right now in the US, first "how many dead?", secondly "was he a Muslim?"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.