h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Texas. Floods. 1 person dead. All over the news.

But this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40975232

We've not heard an awful llot about this have we? Where are the reporters and TV crews sending pictures and news of this back?

I'm sure it can't possibly be because the (more than) 500 reported dead are poor, brown skinned people. No. I'm sure it can't.

This happens time and time again. I'm sure it's pretty bloody awful living through a hurricane and having all your stuff wet. Or having to evacuate in your car or truck. But I'm afraid that next to having your family, livelihood and everything you own (which probaby wasn't an awful lot in the first place), washed away, that really is rather less newsworthy.

PP.

Is it the Western media, or their audiences. Western media goes where their audiences will respond with high ratings. Humans are tribal and hard-wired with an "us and then" mentality. We respond to those we identify with more directly. That doesn't make it right. And remember, we are not the customer of the major media outlets, we're their product. They sell our eyes and ears to advertisers so profit motive typically takes precedence over humanitarian concerns.


Oh. And my family is ok. Just a couple of inches in the house.

Also, British rowers stranded on a Norwegian island, and Russell Brand got married.

I didn't realize that any of Nepal was low enough to be flooded like that. Turns out that part of it is only 194 feet above sea level, where it is part of the Gangetic plain.

When I read this I went and looked at the trending news items on Facebook, possibly UK-centric trending as at the top of the list was Liverpool v Arsenal football results; 2nd was the Texas flooding; 3rd was the Game of Thrones finale.



Deb

It is a case of distance we are inclined to ignore (and it's easy to change the channel on TV) those who are in crisis in a distant country. Even there are very generous people who do their best and give what they can but that is never enough. And people are very aware that charities take a big percentage of the donations

A similar bias is shown every time there's a plane crash or terrorist attack or similar event. Our press will make a point whether any Americans were involved or not. This has always been the case. It's nothing new.

There seems to be a bias in favor of cute kittens.

Our media is a little less focused on nationalities in times of disaster or terror. The main papers and broadcasters will give as much story as they have, and if Canadians are involved - that will be included, but not as a key or focal point.

Our media also at least nod in the direction of Britons being involved in bad stuff abroad sometimes even when they have done bad stuff - the nanny in Boston (Marblehead?) convicted of shaking a baby to death was all over the papers and news here.

My objection to the BBC coverage is that the news coming out of Bangladesh is WAY worse than that coming out of Texas but somehow Texas is more newsworthy. Sorry, but it just isn't. And I can only think that this is a racist attitude in the editorial staff at the BBC prevailing.

So far, no reply to my 2 contacts with them over this issue.

PP.

Ya know, not to diminish what's going on in Bangladesh, but what's going on here is pretty damn bad. Houston is the 4th largest city in the US with a population of 2.3 million in the city alone. We got a years worth of rain in just a few days.


...

I'm going to just now before I get too emotional.

Perhaps a difference is that life is hell annually in Bangladesh, and something the scale of Texas' storms is far more infrequent?

True but therefore the US is less prepared for this kind of disaster than those who cope with it annually, the shock factor of this once in a lifetime calamity together with the complete lack of preparation must make it worse.

That alone would make it more newsworthy

50 inches of rain from a single storm is a record. It compares with the 48 inches form Hurricane Mitch in central America a few years ago; pretty much everyone agrees that Mitch was a major disaster for *any* part of the globe. 10,000 people taking shelter in the Houston Convention Center? That compares with scenes from Katrina.

This is a big time event. The dust has yet to fall. When we can finally look back on it to see how it compares with other disasters [including Bangladesh], can we be so sure it won't be as bad in its way?

But, yes, there is a tendency for the media to glom onto American casualties [and, in the case of the UK, British casualties]. It's just that this time around I see the disaster measuring up.

It is probably simply because there are more camera teams available and more footage to show on the news/pictures to print in the papers. But I agree that it is also definitely biased. This is by no means the first time. It happens all the time.

I was interested to see the celebrity reaction to Houston in the way so many are announcing huge sums of money to be given to the victims in that city but no mention of where any aid is coming from for the flooding victims across Asia. I guess I'll have to go and see if the Oxfam shop's donation tin is still for the Yemen disaster or has moved onto the flooding in Asia.

I hate it when multiple disasters come at the same time.

When it rains it does you know what.