The coverage fits the narrative of white supremacy. White lives are deemed more valuable and more worthy of coverage. Africans being slaughtered has never held any importance to white western civilization; one need only look at the tens of millions that died during the Middle Passage.
This gripe (that the attacks in Paris got more attention then the attacks in Nigeria) is a pattern of demanding whites prove they value the lives of others equally and any indication they do not becomes the focal point, instead of the crimes. Muslims, Arab and Africans, commit massacres in Paris. No one scrutinizes whether Muslims, Arabs and Africans are treating the two attack, one which was an anti-Jewish hate crime, the same as if the races/relgions involved were reverse. That is a question that should be asked. The Islamic world, Arabs and Africans demand whites, Christians and Jews treat them equally. No one points out that Muslims, Arabs and Africans do not treat the lives of people outside of their religous or racial group equally, especially when they are the perpetrators.
The question posed in this essay takes the focus away from the hate crimes commited by Muslims, Africans and Arabs and makes whites "prove" they aren't racist. It slurs those targetted as "racist" for allegedly not valuing the lives of Africans equally. In other words, the best defense is a good offense. It is a way to gain leverage.
The question posed in this essay takes the focus away from the hate crimes commited by Muslims, Africans and Arabs and makes whites "prove" they aren't racist. It slurs those targetted as "racist" for allegedly not valuing the lives of Africans equally. In other words, the best defense is a good offense. It is a way to gain leverage.
2
What no one is pointing out is that the NYT and other western journalists don't dare go in to cover the story because of the completely reasonable fears that they will be decapitated by Boko Haram. In other words, terror is working.
1
I'd assume a few pressures are in play here:
1. Charlie Hebdo was personal. Like it or not, journalists are emotional beings for all that vaunted objectivity. This attack hit too close to home. the coverage was disproportionate because it was personal.
2. Africa is far away and deaths--even horrific deaths--feel like the norm rather than the exception. Fatigue sets in. Even those for whom it is their home continent, if they were forcibly removed and transferred to America as a slave, I would think they'd be lucky to actually know where they originated. It's a continent, not one country--hard to identify with a continent.
3. Charlie Hebdo got the attention because it was the first in the series. Likely the casualties in the Jewish market would have received more coverage if they were first, but likely not quite as much as Charlie Hebdo (see #1 above). Likely Boko Haram's latest atrocity would also have received more coverage if it were first. Fatigue again.
4. Seventeen casualties are graspable as individuals with unique identities. 2000 casualties are statistics. They will never be anything else to those who didn't know them unless a heroic effort is made. An example: NYTimes coverage of every individual who died in the World Trade Center. What if the Times covered all mass killings in such a way. Imagine: refusing to allow these casualties to be only numbers--forcing the world to face the horrific, brutal assault on their humanity. That might make a difference.
1. Charlie Hebdo was personal. Like it or not, journalists are emotional beings for all that vaunted objectivity. This attack hit too close to home. the coverage was disproportionate because it was personal.
2. Africa is far away and deaths--even horrific deaths--feel like the norm rather than the exception. Fatigue sets in. Even those for whom it is their home continent, if they were forcibly removed and transferred to America as a slave, I would think they'd be lucky to actually know where they originated. It's a continent, not one country--hard to identify with a continent.
3. Charlie Hebdo got the attention because it was the first in the series. Likely the casualties in the Jewish market would have received more coverage if they were first, but likely not quite as much as Charlie Hebdo (see #1 above). Likely Boko Haram's latest atrocity would also have received more coverage if it were first. Fatigue again.
4. Seventeen casualties are graspable as individuals with unique identities. 2000 casualties are statistics. They will never be anything else to those who didn't know them unless a heroic effort is made. An example: NYTimes coverage of every individual who died in the World Trade Center. What if the Times covered all mass killings in such a way. Imagine: refusing to allow these casualties to be only numbers--forcing the world to face the horrific, brutal assault on their humanity. That might make a difference.
The media has gone from one incident of white on black violence to another obsessively for years. None of these incidents are different than black on non-black violence that happens everyday. And many of those incidents result in a lack of penalties that would cause outrage if the races were reverse.
For 10 minutes this country was not focused on white on black crime.
And now people complain that the focus isn't on the deaths of people in Africa? I don't remember objection to the continually bring up the murder of those 4 black girls in that Baptist Church and the murder of Emett Till over half a century ago despite crimes just as barbaric occurring every 10 min in Africa. I don't hear objection over more attention given to US slavery which has been over for more than a century then to those currently enslaved in Africa which number in the millions.
I don't see anyone pointing out that there are far worse massacres taking place in Syria, Ukraine, and all over Africa then in Israel. Yet a few hundred Muslims killed by Israelis leads to anti-Jewish sentiment and violence all over the world. Why no similar backlash directed towards those of the same race and religion of those who killed the 3000 Nigerians? If Israel had done it....
Those complaining just do not want any attention on any violence that is black on nonblack, Muslim on nonMuslim. Note that those who call every white on black incident a hate crime never said the same about that black on Jewish market attack.
For 10 minutes this country was not focused on white on black crime.
And now people complain that the focus isn't on the deaths of people in Africa? I don't remember objection to the continually bring up the murder of those 4 black girls in that Baptist Church and the murder of Emett Till over half a century ago despite crimes just as barbaric occurring every 10 min in Africa. I don't hear objection over more attention given to US slavery which has been over for more than a century then to those currently enslaved in Africa which number in the millions.
I don't see anyone pointing out that there are far worse massacres taking place in Syria, Ukraine, and all over Africa then in Israel. Yet a few hundred Muslims killed by Israelis leads to anti-Jewish sentiment and violence all over the world. Why no similar backlash directed towards those of the same race and religion of those who killed the 3000 Nigerians? If Israel had done it....
Those complaining just do not want any attention on any violence that is black on nonblack, Muslim on nonMuslim. Note that those who call every white on black incident a hate crime never said the same about that black on Jewish market attack.
The comments about white versus black lives as the basis for Times coverage is not merely wrong they are silly. If it were just a question of numbers of needlessly dead white people that determined coverage, the lead story most days would be the hundred people killed on our roads each and every day, most of whom are white.
Three things should properly govern the Times decisions on coverage.
1/ A considered judgment as to what will most likely affect the readers' lives.
2/ The preferences of the readers themselves.
3/ The quality of resources available.
The Boko Haram massacres are part of a much bigger story, part of which is the breakdown of sub-Saharan Africa's most populous country and part of which is the internationalism of murderous fundamentalism. That is where the limited Times resources should be directed, not merely a description and tally of the latest carnage.
Whether one thinks it should be that way or not, in the short and medium term, events in Europe are more likely to affect America and Americans than comparable events elsewhere. It was not the number killed or even the immediate outpouring of outrage at the motivation for the killings. Rather, it is what the nexus of events produces in terms of European reaction that is most significant. Whether or not Europe breaks up, whether or not a repeat of something akin to the Balkan wars occurs is simply more relevant to life in the United States at this point in time than parallel events in Nigeria.
Three things should properly govern the Times decisions on coverage.
1/ A considered judgment as to what will most likely affect the readers' lives.
2/ The preferences of the readers themselves.
3/ The quality of resources available.
The Boko Haram massacres are part of a much bigger story, part of which is the breakdown of sub-Saharan Africa's most populous country and part of which is the internationalism of murderous fundamentalism. That is where the limited Times resources should be directed, not merely a description and tally of the latest carnage.
Whether one thinks it should be that way or not, in the short and medium term, events in Europe are more likely to affect America and Americans than comparable events elsewhere. It was not the number killed or even the immediate outpouring of outrage at the motivation for the killings. Rather, it is what the nexus of events produces in terms of European reaction that is most significant. Whether or not Europe breaks up, whether or not a repeat of something akin to the Balkan wars occurs is simply more relevant to life in the United States at this point in time than parallel events in Nigeria.
2
When I travel to Europe, be it England or France or Denmark, I feel at home because that is where my ancestors came from. And not just my forefathers but also my history, my culture, my faith and so many other things. A country like Nigeria is just a name to me and the people there are people that I cannot identify with emotionally, because I share no history with them. This is not the way it should be, but yet it is.
Just as "Justice delayed is Justice denied"; I consider "Coverage delayed is coverage denied". Now, do not get me wrong, I read NYT and am glad that it brings new from various corners, these days from where I was born, India.
But if coverage from some parts of the world are delayed, or not given prominence vis a vis other parts, then NYT has no right to call itself a Global news agency; thus rebderings its Editor's remarks on what they believe is moral on certain issues in the World.
If coverage is delayed from some parts, then they can certainly boast of themeselves as a local news agency catering to the Northern Hemisphere or South Asia for that matter.
But Global you are not and I still like to read NYTs take on the parts you cover.
But if coverage from some parts of the world are delayed, or not given prominence vis a vis other parts, then NYT has no right to call itself a Global news agency; thus rebderings its Editor's remarks on what they believe is moral on certain issues in the World.
If coverage is delayed from some parts, then they can certainly boast of themeselves as a local news agency catering to the Northern Hemisphere or South Asia for that matter.
But Global you are not and I still like to read NYTs take on the parts you cover.
2
The comments about white versus black lives as the basis for Times coverage is not merely wrong they are silly. If it were just a question of numbers of needlessly dead white people that determined coverage, the lead story most days would be the hundred people killed on our roads each and every day, most of whom are white.
Three things should properly govern the Times decisions on coverage.
1/ A considered judgment as to what will most likely affect the readers' lives.
2/ The preferences of the readers themselves.
3/ The quality of resources available.
The Boko Haram massacres are part of a much bigger story, part of which is the breakdown of sub-Saharan Africa's most populous country and part of which is the internationalism of murderous fundamentalism. That is where the limited Times resources should be directed, not merely a description and tally of the latest carnage.
Whether one thinks it should be that way or not, in the short and medium term, events in Europe are more likely to affect America and Americans than comparable events elsewhere. It was not the number killed or even the immediate outpouring of outrage at the motivation for the killings. Rather, it is what the nexus of events produces in terms of European reaction that is most significant. Whether or not Europe breaks up, whether or not a repeat of something akin to the Balkan wars occurs is simply more relevant to life in the United States at this point in time than parallel events in Nigeria.
Three things should properly govern the Times decisions on coverage.
1/ A considered judgment as to what will most likely affect the readers' lives.
2/ The preferences of the readers themselves.
3/ The quality of resources available.
The Boko Haram massacres are part of a much bigger story, part of which is the breakdown of sub-Saharan Africa's most populous country and part of which is the internationalism of murderous fundamentalism. That is where the limited Times resources should be directed, not merely a description and tally of the latest carnage.
Whether one thinks it should be that way or not, in the short and medium term, events in Europe are more likely to affect America and Americans than comparable events elsewhere. It was not the number killed or even the immediate outpouring of outrage at the motivation for the killings. Rather, it is what the nexus of events produces in terms of European reaction that is most significant. Whether or not Europe breaks up, whether or not a repeat of something akin to the Balkan wars occurs is simply more relevant to life in the United States at this point in time than parallel events in Nigeria.
3
I don't think those complaining about the disproportionate coverage would be objecting if this was a crime committed by Zionists targeting journalists for criticizing Israel and targeting a black owned business out of racism.
There is enormous disproportionate amount of media attention given to violence that is white on black and I don't hear anyone complaining. I don't hear these same people complaining that the rare white on black violence gets more coverage, outrage, and condemnation then the more common black on white and the far more common black on black.
There is enormous disproportionate amount of media attention given to violence that is white on black and I don't hear anyone complaining. I don't hear these same people complaining that the rare white on black violence gets more coverage, outrage, and condemnation then the more common black on white and the far more common black on black.
1
Unusual events make the news. Unfortunately, massacres by Boko Haram are starting to seem like the norm. When you've reported on the same thing happening numerous times it almost seems to be no longer newsworthy.
What's most sad is that the corrupt government of Nigeria can't or won't do anything.
What's most sad is that the corrupt government of Nigeria can't or won't do anything.
White journalists in the City of Light vs unknown blacks off in unknown Darkest Africa -- it is not a mystery that coverage was grossly unequal. The only mystery is that a discussion of it tip-toes around the obvious answer.
3
There is grossly unequal coverage of violence in America with the rare acts of white on black violence getting more coverage than the far more epidemic black on non-black violence. Also 3x more whites are killed by the police then black males. You would think that 99.9% of people killed by the police are unarmed black males and that 99% of all homicides are white on black from the coverage. That of course is not racism. But let one story with white victims get more coverage then an incident with black victims and there is an uproar.
What bothers me most about the Times coverages of the various uncivilized actions the ideologically driven is the insistence that "black lives matter" and yet they fail to demonstrate that black live do, indeed, matter to the writers and editors.
The excuses given are lame and fall in to the "look at what we've already done" category.
No where in the self-serving defense is the recognition that the criticism IS about what they have done and the choices they made in not to do.
More and more often when Ms. Sullivan asks the embarrassing questions, the Times journalists and editors are following the example of Obama and the rest of the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever they are calling themselves today in avoiding taking any responsibility for what they have done.
Shame on these writers and editors. They seemed to have missed life's basic lessons on character.
The excuses given are lame and fall in to the "look at what we've already done" category.
No where in the self-serving defense is the recognition that the criticism IS about what they have done and the choices they made in not to do.
More and more often when Ms. Sullivan asks the embarrassing questions, the Times journalists and editors are following the example of Obama and the rest of the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever they are calling themselves today in avoiding taking any responsibility for what they have done.
Shame on these writers and editors. They seemed to have missed life's basic lessons on character.
6
Perhaps the disparity in reportage has something to do with the disparity in the number of incidents. It has become almost expected that war-torn nations are going to experience more such incidents like that in Nigeria. When they occur in France or the U.S., they are major news stories. The question should be what can be done to stop the likes of Boko Haram and stabilize governments.
1
Readers' interest is largely driven by the probability that the story will touch them personally. A plane crash is always interesting because why it crashed may affect your own travel. An attack on a place you might visit or work in is interesting because it could happen to you.
That's selfish but true -- and explains a lot.
That's selfish but true -- and explains a lot.
2
I submitted this comment yesterday but it still hasn't been posted.
1.
The opening premise is wrong. In the real world the single death a family member or friend, or one's dentist is of far more concern and holds our attention far longer, than the death of countless strangers elsewhere.
2.
An event, no matter how tragic or dramatic, becomes passé if it happens frequently. For example, the initial missions into space, even just for a single orbit, grabbed our attention and had far more coverage than today's almost routine space shots, though they are more ambitious and complicated. The Boko Haram kidnappings are an old story.
3.
Paris' avenging Kouachi brothers bore a resemblance to the Dzhokhar brothers who bombed the Boston marathon. Moreover, even those Americans who have never been to Paris know all about that city and its people. Very few of us however, have any association with or conception of northern Nigeria. Furthermore, there is little chance that Boko Haram will start abducting children in the US. Whereas, a US Muslim version of a Charlie Hebdo killing is quite conceivable.
In short, a newspaper relates what it believes will interest its readers. Thus the Paris story justifiably crowded out the much deadlier events in Nigeria.
Incidentally, the media mostly ignores the over 10,000 homicides and over 30,000 highway fatalities suffered every year. Yet, the public editor never asked why our 4,500 dead in Iraq, over 8 years were give such emphasis.
1.
The opening premise is wrong. In the real world the single death a family member or friend, or one's dentist is of far more concern and holds our attention far longer, than the death of countless strangers elsewhere.
2.
An event, no matter how tragic or dramatic, becomes passé if it happens frequently. For example, the initial missions into space, even just for a single orbit, grabbed our attention and had far more coverage than today's almost routine space shots, though they are more ambitious and complicated. The Boko Haram kidnappings are an old story.
3.
Paris' avenging Kouachi brothers bore a resemblance to the Dzhokhar brothers who bombed the Boston marathon. Moreover, even those Americans who have never been to Paris know all about that city and its people. Very few of us however, have any association with or conception of northern Nigeria. Furthermore, there is little chance that Boko Haram will start abducting children in the US. Whereas, a US Muslim version of a Charlie Hebdo killing is quite conceivable.
In short, a newspaper relates what it believes will interest its readers. Thus the Paris story justifiably crowded out the much deadlier events in Nigeria.
Incidentally, the media mostly ignores the over 10,000 homicides and over 30,000 highway fatalities suffered every year. Yet, the public editor never asked why our 4,500 dead in Iraq, over 8 years were give such emphasis.
2
Where was the outcry over the massive disproportionately coverage of the death of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Both of these incidents got more coverage and condemnation than all black on non-black violence combined.
2
One of the things that has troubled me about the reporting and the demonstrations after the attack is the emphasis on it being "An attack on free speech." What bothers me is that this distracts from the fact that it was a murdurous and brutal assault on PEOPLE, not just free speech. It's hard to explain the attack on the Jewish supermarket as being an attack on free speech, but it was definitely an attack on people -- and Jews in particular. Obviously the evil attacks being carried out by Boko Haram have nothing to do with free speech.
4
A better comparison would be to contrast the coverage given to the ongoing massacres in Nigeria with the space devoted to yet another disappearing airplane in Asia. Tell me again how the Times differentiates between reporting space devoted to the latest horrors of mass murder and genocide and the morbid curiosity we all have about an admittedly tragic event.
4
” As a student journalist, “I am wondering why the Times’ news staff has essentially ignored the tragedy in Nigeria while the much smaller-scale terrorist attack in Paris has received such intense attention.”
"I posed these questions to three international editors last week. All were quick to point out that The Times’s West Africa correspondent, Adam Nossiter, has done extraordinary work on Boko Haram for years."
Which doesn't answer the question -- does it ?
That's like, when being asked - "Why did you leave your dog chained outside during the snowstorm and let him die of exposure ?"
You answer - "Well, I've been involved in the animal rights movement for a number of years - long before the topic was receiving the kind of attention it now does."
Booooo !!
My wife is black and works in the corporate non-profit sector, with a lot of "liberal" and "progressive" colleagues -
She has been following the activities of Boko Haram for some time - and will blithely point out, in a simple matter-of-fact tone of voice that - when the topic is something like seventeen French journalists being killed by Muslim terrorists for exercising their "right to free speech" -- that's big news...
However - when it comes to two thousand young, black, African girls and women being kidnapped, tortured and raped...nobody cares --
And from the looks of the coverage by the New York Times -- she's right...
"I posed these questions to three international editors last week. All were quick to point out that The Times’s West Africa correspondent, Adam Nossiter, has done extraordinary work on Boko Haram for years."
Which doesn't answer the question -- does it ?
That's like, when being asked - "Why did you leave your dog chained outside during the snowstorm and let him die of exposure ?"
You answer - "Well, I've been involved in the animal rights movement for a number of years - long before the topic was receiving the kind of attention it now does."
Booooo !!
My wife is black and works in the corporate non-profit sector, with a lot of "liberal" and "progressive" colleagues -
She has been following the activities of Boko Haram for some time - and will blithely point out, in a simple matter-of-fact tone of voice that - when the topic is something like seventeen French journalists being killed by Muslim terrorists for exercising their "right to free speech" -- that's big news...
However - when it comes to two thousand young, black, African girls and women being kidnapped, tortured and raped...nobody cares --
And from the looks of the coverage by the New York Times -- she's right...
12
To add to my previous comments I would offer the following on the BBC website:
"Boko Haram crisis: Why it is hard to know the truth in Nigeria"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30794829
To reiterate what I said earlier in this regard:
Several decades ago I began to listen to the BBC for coverage of sub-Saharan Africa and some other areas. The legacy of colonialism meant that the British had more experience, better contacts, and a greater understanding of their ex-colonial areas than did anyone else. It's still largely true, especially in these times when the resources of quality, responsible journalism are being squeezed out by the ubiquitous titillation of the internet.
"Boko Haram crisis: Why it is hard to know the truth in Nigeria"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30794829
To reiterate what I said earlier in this regard:
Several decades ago I began to listen to the BBC for coverage of sub-Saharan Africa and some other areas. The legacy of colonialism meant that the British had more experience, better contacts, and a greater understanding of their ex-colonial areas than did anyone else. It's still largely true, especially in these times when the resources of quality, responsible journalism are being squeezed out by the ubiquitous titillation of the internet.
8
The coverage of the killing of the Charlie Hebdo staff was disproportionate to the coverage of the attack at the Jewish supermarket. The French reaction followed the same pattern. I saw countless signs "I am Charlie Hebdo," but I saw nothing commemorating the death of the Jews. Jewish lives matter too.
5
I noticed many journalists and public figures who obsessively call every white on black act of violence a racially based atrocity have failed to mention the market attack was a hate crime or the race of the perp. This paper has obsessively pointed out race in every white on black killing also. They failed to do so in the Paris market attack. They emphasized that the police officer killed and market employee who helped people were Muslim but failed to mention the religious background of the other 16 people killed. Any public editor comment on that?
I've always thought coverage is a function of the ease of getting there and the availability of hotel space.
1
Compare the number of comments to this story (31) to the main NYT January 7th story about the Paris attacks (2,661 before the comments section was closed). Perhaps the resources and coverage the Times devotes to Paris vs. Nigeria and the Boko Haram massacre are merely and sadly representative of the interest (or lack there of) of the general public.
7
Several decades ago I began to listen to the BBC for coverage of sub-Saharan Africa and some other areas. The legacy of colonialism meant that the British had more experience, better contacts, and a greater understanding of their ex-colonial areas than did anyone else. It's still largely true, especially in these times when the resources of quality, responsible journalism are being squeezed out by the ubiquitous titillation of the internet.
1
“Not every incident of carnage is a major story for The New York Times. You have to put it in context, and not fill the news report with unlimited doses of terrible violent news from around the world.”
The point was that the NY Times barely reported a major carnage, and that is did not put it in context. Sorry, but the truth is that the NY Times wrote about the death of white people because it was important to their audience of white elite liberals, and they ignored the deaths of Nigerians because those lives don't matter as much to them. The hypocrisy of the NY Times has never been more evident, and the quotations from the editors are even worse.
Please remind me why I read this paper?
The point was that the NY Times barely reported a major carnage, and that is did not put it in context. Sorry, but the truth is that the NY Times wrote about the death of white people because it was important to their audience of white elite liberals, and they ignored the deaths of Nigerians because those lives don't matter as much to them. The hypocrisy of the NY Times has never been more evident, and the quotations from the editors are even worse.
Please remind me why I read this paper?
2
There is an inverse square law that commands readers' attention; and the distance with which readers' attention rapidly falls off is cultural, ethnic and economic as well as geographic. I think we have made considerable progress since the colonial times, but much room for change remains.
3
I agree that the two stories are not comparable because the Paris attack was on freedom of expression and raised the issue of whether there was a right to be free of offense, for which the Times response was inadequate. But a better comparison to address the question of whether black lives matter is to compare coverage of Boko Haram massacres with the massacre of campers in Norway several years ago. Blue-eyed blond seems always to trump black.
3
I believe a huge factor in the discrepancy of media coverage concerning the slaughter of innocents by Boko Haram is that they are not "us". "Us" being defined as the Western oriented news media and the people (Western) they supposedly serve. We identify more with well educated European journalists than we do people who live in the remote areas of Africa. It's just the way life is.
Tried to learn meaning of the phrase 'calculus of loss' in title to no avail. When I googled the only citation was the title of your article. Have you coined a phrase?
2
.
Fred Best's Comment gives voice to a question that has haunted me of late:
What do the Public Editor's headlines reference?
Sure, I recognized "So We Beat On" (Oct. 2014) from F. Scott Fitzgerald; more recently, "Journalism in a time of Ebola" was a cute Love/Cholera substitution.
But I lack the Public Editor's literary background (translation: I'm little better than illiterate), and I am fairly convinced that I am missing about 95% of the references.
Can we have footnotes, a cheat sheet, something to let us know what literary work(s) are being borrowed from? Otherwise, we have to Google them, which takes our time away from clicking through the advertisements that keep the organization profitable!
[And then there are the literary references in the text. Oy. You know, Ms. Sullivan, the Solution to the Crossword Puzzle is made available the next day. Surely you can throw us a similar lifeline?]
Fred Best's Comment gives voice to a question that has haunted me of late:
What do the Public Editor's headlines reference?
Sure, I recognized "So We Beat On" (Oct. 2014) from F. Scott Fitzgerald; more recently, "Journalism in a time of Ebola" was a cute Love/Cholera substitution.
But I lack the Public Editor's literary background (translation: I'm little better than illiterate), and I am fairly convinced that I am missing about 95% of the references.
Can we have footnotes, a cheat sheet, something to let us know what literary work(s) are being borrowed from? Otherwise, we have to Google them, which takes our time away from clicking through the advertisements that keep the organization profitable!
[And then there are the literary references in the text. Oy. You know, Ms. Sullivan, the Solution to the Crossword Puzzle is made available the next day. Surely you can throw us a similar lifeline?]
1
Journalists feel an obligation to cover attacks on journalists. This is not a cynical observation. (See this moving memorial from the Newseum: http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/journalists-memorial/)
While this is somewhat similar to police solidarity in demonstrating loyalty to collegaues, journalists - rightly one might argue - believe passionately in the ethics of their work, and the essential role of the fourth estate in civic life.
The "Paris attack" was quite clearly on freedom of speech/expression, and other freedoms such as freedom of religion.
So it should be no surprise that the "media" rose as one to decry this horrible act against . Similar one might say disproportionate attention has given the journalists held captive and murdered by ISIS.
I actually have several personal ties to Nigeria, and grieve over the endless horror coming out of that country from Boku Haram.
But I believe the usually insightful Ms. Sullivan - and these commenters - missed what is to me an obvious explanation of the media being loyal to their own - and having the voice (by definition) to spread that message.
People are killed all day, every day, all over the world, for all kinds of reasons. The calculus of what is newsworthy is complicated.
But while race and stature certainly plays a role, do an armchair experiment: if the Paris attacks of Jan. 9 had, for example, killed the same number of - oh, pick a category; bankers..... and how the media coverage would have been different.
While this is somewhat similar to police solidarity in demonstrating loyalty to collegaues, journalists - rightly one might argue - believe passionately in the ethics of their work, and the essential role of the fourth estate in civic life.
The "Paris attack" was quite clearly on freedom of speech/expression, and other freedoms such as freedom of religion.
So it should be no surprise that the "media" rose as one to decry this horrible act against . Similar one might say disproportionate attention has given the journalists held captive and murdered by ISIS.
I actually have several personal ties to Nigeria, and grieve over the endless horror coming out of that country from Boku Haram.
But I believe the usually insightful Ms. Sullivan - and these commenters - missed what is to me an obvious explanation of the media being loyal to their own - and having the voice (by definition) to spread that message.
People are killed all day, every day, all over the world, for all kinds of reasons. The calculus of what is newsworthy is complicated.
But while race and stature certainly plays a role, do an armchair experiment: if the Paris attacks of Jan. 9 had, for example, killed the same number of - oh, pick a category; bankers..... and how the media coverage would have been different.
4
I am a retired newspaper copy editor and agree completely -- I protested throughout my career that the "media" gave too much attention to stories involving fellow journalists, often unwarranted and of little or no interest to the general public.
Four sentences on the massacre of two thousand people in Bogo, Nigeria, seems entirely proportional when compared to the Times's coverage, from that day to this, of the genocide by the Nigerian government, aided by every major power (except France), of some million people in Biafra.
4
As an African-born American, I very much applaud the article's important call for the equality of the importance of every life, regardless of race or geography, and I read with keen interest the justifications put forward for the skewed coverage of the two events.
I was, however, surprised with the narrow focus on the number of lives lost, and on the coverage given to the separate events in the article. The unmistakable nature of the Paris attack on press freedom justified the broad and sustained attention it attracted. The immediacy, transparency and success of the defiant French response, continued to fuel the coverage coveted and demanded by supporters of democracy everywhere, who were being comforted by the spirit and resiliency of the French response.
I expect that this article by Editor Sullivan will succeed in improving the balance of coverage of world events in the short term, and sincerely hope that the lessons of the unrelenting coverage of the Paris events encourages the Nigerian people to take advantage of this Western bias to initiate a frontal attack on its internal insurgency of international import.
I was, however, surprised with the narrow focus on the number of lives lost, and on the coverage given to the separate events in the article. The unmistakable nature of the Paris attack on press freedom justified the broad and sustained attention it attracted. The immediacy, transparency and success of the defiant French response, continued to fuel the coverage coveted and demanded by supporters of democracy everywhere, who were being comforted by the spirit and resiliency of the French response.
I expect that this article by Editor Sullivan will succeed in improving the balance of coverage of world events in the short term, and sincerely hope that the lessons of the unrelenting coverage of the Paris events encourages the Nigerian people to take advantage of this Western bias to initiate a frontal attack on its internal insurgency of international import.
5
Thank you for taking on this topic. It needs attention and reflection by readers as well as those at the Times. It drew informative comments also worth reading and considering.
5
What I took from the editors' responses was:
Black lives matter...except when they don't.
What a shameful message that they are sending.
Black lives matter...except when they don't.
What a shameful message that they are sending.
3
Perhaps this criticism is unfair and it is admittedly based on intermittent observation. Nevertheless, I have noticed that the Public Editor's conclusions from time to time are offered only as a brief statement at the end of the article requiring the reader to ponder the reasons behind your conclusions. For instance, the conclusion as stated in this article almost looks as iif had been decided on a coin flip.
It wold be far more helpful to the reader for you to provide your own analyysis, instead of merely restating the comments by readers and responses of the editors. I would like to hear in greater detail why you disagree with their decision and by what reasoning you came to your conclusion. Otherwise, it dumps everything in my lap to figure out. Worse, it suggests that perhaps you don't want to risk offending the editors too much, so you are deliberately avoiding a more detailed critique.
I sometimes criticize the paper for printing news articles that seem to express the reporter's viewpoint. However, in the case of the Public Editor, I believe readers are best served by understanding her viewpoint in detail.
It wold be far more helpful to the reader for you to provide your own analyysis, instead of merely restating the comments by readers and responses of the editors. I would like to hear in greater detail why you disagree with their decision and by what reasoning you came to your conclusion. Otherwise, it dumps everything in my lap to figure out. Worse, it suggests that perhaps you don't want to risk offending the editors too much, so you are deliberately avoiding a more detailed critique.
I sometimes criticize the paper for printing news articles that seem to express the reporter's viewpoint. However, in the case of the Public Editor, I believe readers are best served by understanding her viewpoint in detail.
3
I follow the newsmedia of South Asia on the internet. Surprisingly, the media in Pakistan and Bangladesh also gave about the same coverage to the Paris murders and far less to the mayhem in Nigeria. Of course, much of the discussion in the Pakistan media had to do with whether or not blasphemy is free speech, and how the West/Europe is hypocritical because holocaust denial is not considered free speech. These discussions, whether or not the western reader cares about them are natural for Pakistan where blasphemy is punishable by law, but also many citizens are against the law.
What was far less understandable was the handwringing in the Bangladeshi media, with many journalists and op-ed column writers worried about how the Muslim world is losing its moral compass. But one would have expected the mass murders in Nigeria, and not the deaths of far fewer people in Paris, to have provoked that discussion!
Thus it is not just the western media which placed higher relative values to human lives, - the media in poor countries seem to have accepted this evaluation !!
What was far less understandable was the handwringing in the Bangladeshi media, with many journalists and op-ed column writers worried about how the Muslim world is losing its moral compass. But one would have expected the mass murders in Nigeria, and not the deaths of far fewer people in Paris, to have provoked that discussion!
Thus it is not just the western media which placed higher relative values to human lives, - the media in poor countries seem to have accepted this evaluation !!
5
Maybe we expect to see this kind of thing in Africa, today. just as we do in the Middle East, and are not moved by it. But, MAYBE it's because the victims of Boco Haram were Black.
12
Well, maybe, indeed, I think it plays a role. but at the same time, 200,000 white people have been killed in Syria, and they don't get much attention either. Ditto various other terrorist attacks around the world. We feel closest to Europe and so Europe gets the most attention. It's also true that this attack had unusual characteristics.
They were black. They were African. You can mask it in all the hyperbole you want.
11
And once again, The Daily Show covered this, including the discrepancy in reporting, better than the mainstream media.
16
Maybe there is just too much killing in this world.
7
I noticed the same problem with the "disappearing" of the 43 Mexican students recently.In the week following the incident I saw perhaps two mentions of it in the Times and not prominently either.I read the Times religiously and daily but I rely on the internet for much of my information.
21
Another reason the NYT coverage matters: it affects things far away. Locally here in Abuja, people still talk about the kidnapped girls, albeit in wistful tones. We know they'll never be rescued. Still people at least know about the tragedy.
The recent massacres go mostly unremarked, in part because we get the same mass media coverage the rest of the world does. What doesn't make a splash in the NYT, doesn't make a slash here either, all too often.
As a friend likes to remark, we're the capital in The Huger Games, self absorbed, secretly worried, and frivolous at times. Parents are transferring students abroad, businessmen are quietly planning to be in Europe or elsewhere with their families if possible during the upcoming February elections for president and congress.
The situation deserves attention: Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, with half the USA's population crammed into 1/6 the land. The USA is watched carefully and obscure factoids, like opposition leader Buhari attending one of president Obama's inaugurations, are surprisingly well known. It literally hurts when tragedies here are ignored. The victims' families are that more less likely to seeing any continuing problems addressed without external mention.
As far as difficulty reporting, there are countless Nigerian bloggers whose reports could be investigated, chronicled, or at least linked. It's less a lack of information than will and editorial choice. It can be fixed.
The recent massacres go mostly unremarked, in part because we get the same mass media coverage the rest of the world does. What doesn't make a splash in the NYT, doesn't make a slash here either, all too often.
As a friend likes to remark, we're the capital in The Huger Games, self absorbed, secretly worried, and frivolous at times. Parents are transferring students abroad, businessmen are quietly planning to be in Europe or elsewhere with their families if possible during the upcoming February elections for president and congress.
The situation deserves attention: Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, with half the USA's population crammed into 1/6 the land. The USA is watched carefully and obscure factoids, like opposition leader Buhari attending one of president Obama's inaugurations, are surprisingly well known. It literally hurts when tragedies here are ignored. The victims' families are that more less likely to seeing any continuing problems addressed without external mention.
As far as difficulty reporting, there are countless Nigerian bloggers whose reports could be investigated, chronicled, or at least linked. It's less a lack of information than will and editorial choice. It can be fixed.
18
One guide could be how unusual are the deaths? The attacks in Paris constituted an unusual loss of life. Conversely, thousands die on our highways each month, but few are reported.
Where Boko Haram lies between these two examples I leave to others.
Where Boko Haram lies between these two examples I leave to others.
3
On one level, I suspect that we have been taught to ignore Islamist terror attacks in certain areas so as to be able to focus on one particular country in the region. Most certainly we hear far more about the political ups and downs and daily life in that single country than in all the rest of the region. Had rural Nigeria been replaced with Gaza, and had Boko Haram been replaced with Israel, even the deaths of 2 people would have garnered front page news. On another level, perhaps it is because the attack on Charlie Hebdo is about more than just the loss of life but also about a direct attack on the values of a free society, and the rights of a group to demand that any society bend to their will. This is something that strike far closer to the spirit of our national identity, and there is much more to discuss in the matter of how a society can welcome in all peoples and respect their mores without limiting the freedoms of all.
Surely the massacre in Nigeria should have received front page coverage. However, I do not know if there is what to report on this every day of the next 10 days.
Surely the massacre in Nigeria should have received front page coverage. However, I do not know if there is what to report on this every day of the next 10 days.
1
Was the NYT not criticized recently by the FBI for using an unnamed Al-Qaeda source?
Was this source verified? If so how? Undoubtedly it was not, now the NYT says it is difficult to verify Boko Haram stories. Indeed.
Did the NYT verify all Hamas stories from Gaza? There are many who claim that the NYT was lax due to danger etc.
Yet, now verification is cited as a reason not to publish, because it is difficult and time consuming?
Mr. Kahn is not very convincing.
Was this source verified? If so how? Undoubtedly it was not, now the NYT says it is difficult to verify Boko Haram stories. Indeed.
Did the NYT verify all Hamas stories from Gaza? There are many who claim that the NYT was lax due to danger etc.
Yet, now verification is cited as a reason not to publish, because it is difficult and time consuming?
Mr. Kahn is not very convincing.
5
I agree with Mr. Kahn. And they are totally different stories. This isn't about numbers of deaths (if it were, then the front page would be dominated by automobile accident deaths since that represents a huge number).
One story was about yet another raid (albeit a big one) and the other was about a whole different escalation against a fundamental tenet of Western Civilization.
One story was about yet another raid (albeit a big one) and the other was about a whole different escalation against a fundamental tenet of Western Civilization.
4
Certainly given the tone and nature of the Times coverage, it would have been better for the Times to have paid less attention to the French attacks. The Times however leaps for joy when it can present unflattering coverage of things European and so went all in. The Editorial Board exemplified the NYT attitude as a whole, in its sickening comparison of events in France last summer to Kristallnacht. No worries about trivializing the Holocaust, if one can use it to bash Europe. I have yet to see an apology by the NYT or Ms. Sullivan for this comparison, so the NYT, and she, has zero moral authority on any topic. They are clearly morally obtuse. Why didn't the NYT report more on the Boko Haram attack? Why not indeed? Or why doesn't the NYT report more on American deaths by firearm? According to my calculations, the same number of Americans die by gunshot wounds every day as died in the Paris attacks in January. Incredibly, the NYT by many measures paid more attention to the attack in Paris than to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
13
I'm afriad you lost me there. I haven't noticed anything unusually unflattering about European news and I can't imagine why or that anyone at the Times would "jump for joy" at such misfortune. I suspect that they were, personally, feeling solidarity with France, as French citizens felt solidarity with us on 9/11. As to death by firearms, you don't seem to understand that news judgment is not a matter of reckoning up the number of deaths. If it were, most newspaper articles would probably be about heart attacks and traffic accidents.
4
U.S. media coverage skews white. No surprise there. The number of fatalities involving non-Caucasians has to clear an awfully high bar before it qualifies for more than a news brief.
Remember the Rwandan genocide? A pretty good job of looking the other way was done on that one, too. And what was the death toll there, a half-million? A million? More? But who's counting?
It's easy to devalue the lives of people who "aren't like us." Which is one of the reasons why when our government blows away households, wedding parties, funeral processions and the like with drone strikes on the other side of the world, the casualties can be sanitized, dehumanized and lumped together as "collateral damage."
No need to keep an accurate count of those, right? Or take names. Because, as an immortal newscaster named Cronkite would say, that's just "the way it is." And, apparently, always will be.
Remember the Rwandan genocide? A pretty good job of looking the other way was done on that one, too. And what was the death toll there, a half-million? A million? More? But who's counting?
It's easy to devalue the lives of people who "aren't like us." Which is one of the reasons why when our government blows away households, wedding parties, funeral processions and the like with drone strikes on the other side of the world, the casualties can be sanitized, dehumanized and lumped together as "collateral damage."
No need to keep an accurate count of those, right? Or take names. Because, as an immortal newscaster named Cronkite would say, that's just "the way it is." And, apparently, always will be.
41
.
@ Dotconnector
You and I have both been on the lookout for insufficient coverage of deaths caused by US attacks on foreigners, as noted by Ms. Sullivan at a time when I used a different nytimes.com alias:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/responding-to-reader-co...
(She did not quote me on that occasion as having pointed out an instance of underreporting, but trust me when I say I have done so. Or ask her former assistants.)
Yet, I think it is unfair to state that skin color of the victims is the best determinant of coverage. Indeed -- and I recognize that this is merely anecdotal -- only one news organization received a 2014 Pulitzer Prize solely for coverage of African deaths in 2013. No, the murder victims weren't Nigerian; but to my recollection, they weren't white either.
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Breaking-News-Photography
(Click through to the photographs if you feel the need to place the victims on a skin-color spectrum. I think there's a tab labeled "Works".)
Perhaps "U.S. news coverage skews white"; but perhaps, too, some news organizations are less culpable than others.
Also, I have no real clue regarding the skin-color breakdown of the 17 people whom Ms. Sullivan considers to be the victims of the Paris violence. Were they "white"? I didn't check, "Because I am involved in ALL mankind" [paraphrasing John Donne].
@ Dotconnector
You and I have both been on the lookout for insufficient coverage of deaths caused by US attacks on foreigners, as noted by Ms. Sullivan at a time when I used a different nytimes.com alias:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/responding-to-reader-co...
(She did not quote me on that occasion as having pointed out an instance of underreporting, but trust me when I say I have done so. Or ask her former assistants.)
Yet, I think it is unfair to state that skin color of the victims is the best determinant of coverage. Indeed -- and I recognize that this is merely anecdotal -- only one news organization received a 2014 Pulitzer Prize solely for coverage of African deaths in 2013. No, the murder victims weren't Nigerian; but to my recollection, they weren't white either.
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Breaking-News-Photography
(Click through to the photographs if you feel the need to place the victims on a skin-color spectrum. I think there's a tab labeled "Works".)
Perhaps "U.S. news coverage skews white"; but perhaps, too, some news organizations are less culpable than others.
Also, I have no real clue regarding the skin-color breakdown of the 17 people whom Ms. Sullivan considers to be the victims of the Paris violence. Were they "white"? I didn't check, "Because I am involved in ALL mankind" [paraphrasing John Donne].
Seriously? The most dominant stories in The Times lately have been Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.
7
So how about those single deaths which you folks will over-report on for months, because it advances your editorial cause.
What irks most about those is when one anecdote stops working (e.g. Ferguson's gentle giant), you shamelessly and seamlessly just move on to another.
If you have a opinion to voice, go ahead. Masking it in anecdotes and as reporting is just...chickenslop.
What irks most about those is when one anecdote stops working (e.g. Ferguson's gentle giant), you shamelessly and seamlessly just move on to another.
If you have a opinion to voice, go ahead. Masking it in anecdotes and as reporting is just...chickenslop.
17
.
.
@W in the Middle:
In Ferguson 1994, as in Selma 1965, as at Kent State 1970, a small number of citizens (or one citizen) suffered death, injury, or restraint at the hands of some Government employee(s).
In such incidents throughout our history, the citizen-victim is often unarmed; the Government employee may be a police officer, a National Guardsman, an agent of the FBI/CIA/NSA/Secret Service, or a member of the military.
I would certainly hope that any quality American news organization would pursue the "editorial cause" of reporting on every aspect of such incidents.
If not, then the lives lost in the (pre-Revolutionary) Boston Massacre will have been lost in vain.
Do you believe our nation was founded on the premise that a Free Press would IGNORE physical acts of government employees impeding members of the citizenry, particularly in the absence of a Warrant?
If YOU were killed, injured, prevented from crossing a bridge, prevented from voting, or otherwise molested by some person acting as an agent of YOUR government, wouldn't you, and members of your social/family circle, want media to cover that story? And when they did cover that story, would it be a mere "editorial cause"?
[By the way, I also think it should be news every time a government employee just doing his/her job is killed by an armed civilian.]
.
@W in the Middle:
In Ferguson 1994, as in Selma 1965, as at Kent State 1970, a small number of citizens (or one citizen) suffered death, injury, or restraint at the hands of some Government employee(s).
In such incidents throughout our history, the citizen-victim is often unarmed; the Government employee may be a police officer, a National Guardsman, an agent of the FBI/CIA/NSA/Secret Service, or a member of the military.
I would certainly hope that any quality American news organization would pursue the "editorial cause" of reporting on every aspect of such incidents.
If not, then the lives lost in the (pre-Revolutionary) Boston Massacre will have been lost in vain.
Do you believe our nation was founded on the premise that a Free Press would IGNORE physical acts of government employees impeding members of the citizenry, particularly in the absence of a Warrant?
If YOU were killed, injured, prevented from crossing a bridge, prevented from voting, or otherwise molested by some person acting as an agent of YOUR government, wouldn't you, and members of your social/family circle, want media to cover that story? And when they did cover that story, would it be a mere "editorial cause"?
[By the way, I also think it should be news every time a government employee just doing his/her job is killed by an armed civilian.]
2
Only one man died in the "Boston massacre." And the soldiers charged with the killing were defended by John Adams and acquited by a Boston jury
I understand more than you may think - but you're making my point.
I assume you're talking about the Pettus bridge incident. The Danziger bridge incident was ten years ago - not fifty - and just as systemically horrifying.
Not much more than fifty years ago, one didn't have to leave NYC to experience profound structural discrimination - let alone de facto discrimination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/nyregion/22stuyvesant.html
You're right. No one should have to die - in vain or otherwise - this way.
But no one should have to live this way, either.
And no one should have to die, for that story to be told - or considered sustainably newsworthy.
Here's something more viscerally powerful than I've read in the NYT in a while - and all fact-based:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human...
I assume you're talking about the Pettus bridge incident. The Danziger bridge incident was ten years ago - not fifty - and just as systemically horrifying.
Not much more than fifty years ago, one didn't have to leave NYC to experience profound structural discrimination - let alone de facto discrimination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/nyregion/22stuyvesant.html
You're right. No one should have to die - in vain or otherwise - this way.
But no one should have to live this way, either.
And no one should have to die, for that story to be told - or considered sustainably newsworthy.
Here's something more viscerally powerful than I've read in the NYT in a while - and all fact-based:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human...
.
.
I consider this topic a worthy one for a Sunday column, and I thank Ms. Sullivan for excellent reporting on how coverage decisions are made. It's also great to read about the observations of readers.
Some may not consider the Paris and Africa killings comparable. But to me, both are of a piece with any incident in which someone carries a powerful weapon into a place not normally prone to weapon use -- magazine office, school, mall, theater, marathon, an outdoor "Meet Your Representative" event -- and annihilates other humans.
In the incidents in Paris and Nigeria (as in Columbine or Sandy Hook or Arizona or ...), a lot of people died for no reason. Oh, the killers may have delusions of a reason, but to me it always sounds pretty much like "I don't like Mondays." In other words, no reason at all.
I suppose my own question now has to do with the concept that one can "overreport violent death."
I happen to believe that every senseless shooting deserves news coverage; but I also believe every preventable death of a child deserves news coverage. I don't expect everyone to agree with me; but I really did not know until this very day that one could overreport shootings.
As for prioritizing coverage based upon the number of dead, I shall defer to John Donne:
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind ...
.
I consider this topic a worthy one for a Sunday column, and I thank Ms. Sullivan for excellent reporting on how coverage decisions are made. It's also great to read about the observations of readers.
Some may not consider the Paris and Africa killings comparable. But to me, both are of a piece with any incident in which someone carries a powerful weapon into a place not normally prone to weapon use -- magazine office, school, mall, theater, marathon, an outdoor "Meet Your Representative" event -- and annihilates other humans.
In the incidents in Paris and Nigeria (as in Columbine or Sandy Hook or Arizona or ...), a lot of people died for no reason. Oh, the killers may have delusions of a reason, but to me it always sounds pretty much like "I don't like Mondays." In other words, no reason at all.
I suppose my own question now has to do with the concept that one can "overreport violent death."
I happen to believe that every senseless shooting deserves news coverage; but I also believe every preventable death of a child deserves news coverage. I don't expect everyone to agree with me; but I really did not know until this very day that one could overreport shootings.
As for prioritizing coverage based upon the number of dead, I shall defer to John Donne:
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind ...
13
A dozen white Westerners dying for freedom of the press are intrinsically more interesting to white Westerners practicing freedom of the press than thousands of nameless black victims of internecine warfare in a part of the world that routinely produces such atrocities.
30
For coverage of happenings like these in Nigeria, I turn to the BBC News website.
30
i) The Paris attacks were at specific targets and a direct attack on notions of freedom of speech that many Times readers hold dear.
ii) Battle fatigue. After a while the attacks by a military force become too common to be reported greatly. Look at the terrible situation in Syria, it certainly doesn't make headlines when yet another fifty innocents die.
Sullivan makes a good argument that the Nigerian attacks were underreported. But the comparison to the Paris attacks doesn't
hold.
ii) Battle fatigue. After a while the attacks by a military force become too common to be reported greatly. Look at the terrible situation in Syria, it certainly doesn't make headlines when yet another fifty innocents die.
Sullivan makes a good argument that the Nigerian attacks were underreported. But the comparison to the Paris attacks doesn't
hold.
20
.
I disagree that the Paris attacks were a "direct attack on notions of free speech ..."; or at best, I consider the assertion unprovable now that the Paris killers are dead and therefore beyond interrogation.
1. I have neither seen nor heard any evidence that the Charlie Hebdo killers understood notions of free speech or press well enough to kill journalists as a way of attacking those notions.
2. Several of the earlier Paris victims were not involved with journalism, so killing them would not have been an attack on notions of free speech even if the killers understood those notions. By this I mean the police officers who were killed, as well as the "technical maintenance" worker who was killed in the lobby of the building where Charlie Hebdo -- and other companies -- had offices. (Quoted words are from my French friend who knew the man; I imagine they are an imperfect translation from a French term. He has been called a "security officer" in US media reports, but she tells me he had been promoted to "technical maintenance". He was indeed killed at the lobby information/security desk.)
3. From my understanding, the last Paris shooting victims were killed in or near a Kosher supermarket. I have no reason to think they were attacked as a way of attacking free speech. Appearances indicate that they were attacked on suspicion of being Jews; but I have no idea. Does anyone?
I disagree that the Paris attacks were a "direct attack on notions of free speech ..."; or at best, I consider the assertion unprovable now that the Paris killers are dead and therefore beyond interrogation.
1. I have neither seen nor heard any evidence that the Charlie Hebdo killers understood notions of free speech or press well enough to kill journalists as a way of attacking those notions.
2. Several of the earlier Paris victims were not involved with journalism, so killing them would not have been an attack on notions of free speech even if the killers understood those notions. By this I mean the police officers who were killed, as well as the "technical maintenance" worker who was killed in the lobby of the building where Charlie Hebdo -- and other companies -- had offices. (Quoted words are from my French friend who knew the man; I imagine they are an imperfect translation from a French term. He has been called a "security officer" in US media reports, but she tells me he had been promoted to "technical maintenance". He was indeed killed at the lobby information/security desk.)
3. From my understanding, the last Paris shooting victims were killed in or near a Kosher supermarket. I have no reason to think they were attacked as a way of attacking free speech. Appearances indicate that they were attacked on suspicion of being Jews; but I have no idea. Does anyone?
11
An excellent column. Mr. Kahn's suggestion about covering breaking events in dangerous and faraway places along with a discussion of controversial nature of the evidence is a good place to start on this problem. It would not only oppose the otherwise natural conclusion that some (whiter?) lives are considered to be more important than others, but help readers understand the process of gathering news and evaluating it before just putting it out there.
11
With their potent mix of news, analysis and opinion, and frequent use of the first person, blogs are for many people more engaging than traditional reporting. The proper response of traditional reporters must not be to ape blogs, but to redouble their guard against migrating in that direction.