Maybe the urge to give is dampened when we hear the end results of all the millions sent that no one can account for in the country to which the millions were sent, i.e., ebola in Africa.
1
Betsy - there are dozens of reputable non profit organizations doing great work - as a donor, you have an obligation to hold them accountable - you can do this by reviewing their financials which many of them publish with full transparency. A key ratio to check on is their percentage of "General & Admin" costs - if this is below 15% you generally have an organization doing good work and making an impact. Remember, it takes money to administer effective and efficient social programs just as it does in the "for-profit" sector.
1
"But foreign news generates far less interest from consumers than domestic events." Perhaps if our major institutions - notably, the government and the media - treated the American people less like "consumers" and more like "citizens," we would not so easily lose focus on the great issues of the day.
2
Maybe our attention span is somewhat occupied of late. No jobs, failing educational system, disintegrating roads and infrastructure, political corruption on a monumental scale, continual war, death spiral of the middle class, ineffective leaders, health care costs out of reach for the average person. A nation on it's back. While we feel for the people in Nepal, the mood of the country is one of numbness, sorrow, and hopelessness for our own future. When these issues are even somewhat relived perhaps then we can muster the emotional strength needed for people on the other side of the world again.
1
The 'unfortunate zero sum dynamic" has no meaning in the real world . We readers are attracted to fare which you serve, but nearly always as entertainment , rarely as useful information, rarely having any effect on our lives. It's just interesting, and that is not deplorable .The seven billion dots are not connected.
2
It seems to me natural to be more focused on events closer to oneself. My town weekly didn't cover Nepal or Baltimore. If my child had been injured I wouldn't even have read the paper, too busy perhaps donating blood.
4
This really has not much to do with foreign stories vs. local stories, but rather the generally short media half-life of anything these days. The Newtown school shooting was no longer page one news after about a week. "Regular" school shootings barely last two days' worth of coverage.
by barely scratching the surface, news
is indeed the map of the terrority.
is indeed the map of the terrority.
It's not surprising that media interest in Nepal's earthquake shifted quickly to Baltimore, Bruce Jenner and other stories closer to home. The question for me is what this means for those of us who care deeply about a country and know its challenge is continuing. As a former Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal, I think we have a special responsibility, as I discussed this morning in an op-ed for North Carolina's News & Observer. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article19965894.html
1
I can understand the emotional frustration in this story and agree with it.
However, I think we need to understand that we are the first global society that has access to this kind of information so fast, so regularly, and on such a scale. We need to seriously consider whether we as human beings are equipped to manage this onslaught of information from an emotional and intellectual perspective. Can we really understand short highlights of such an event that is thousands of miles away? Is the average individual supposed to feel any sense of responsibility? (if so, why and how?) How much of this kind of news is the average person (with their own lives to live) supposed to "responsibly" absorb? Who determines this and based on what?
However, I think we need to understand that we are the first global society that has access to this kind of information so fast, so regularly, and on such a scale. We need to seriously consider whether we as human beings are equipped to manage this onslaught of information from an emotional and intellectual perspective. Can we really understand short highlights of such an event that is thousands of miles away? Is the average individual supposed to feel any sense of responsibility? (if so, why and how?) How much of this kind of news is the average person (with their own lives to live) supposed to "responsibly" absorb? Who determines this and based on what?
14
We were never intended to be human FM receivers for all of the bad news the world has to offer.
4
It really depends on the geography overseas where the news story is taking place. For example if there is a huge breaking news story in Great Britain, Israel, or somewhere in the Middle East like ISIS trying to take over territory in Iraq, of course that provide a large amount of media attention for days and weeks on end.
However the media wouldn't cover a disaster like a disease outbreak unless it reaches our shores (Ebola 2014, when thousands of people in West African countries were infected and dying, yet received little media attention, only the media was paying attention to the handful of Americans infected). So it really depends the geography and the type of story covered overseas that will get the amount of media coverage.
However the media wouldn't cover a disaster like a disease outbreak unless it reaches our shores (Ebola 2014, when thousands of people in West African countries were infected and dying, yet received little media attention, only the media was paying attention to the handful of Americans infected). So it really depends the geography and the type of story covered overseas that will get the amount of media coverage.
3
What coverage remains of the aftermath has tended to focus on the fate of a small number of Western climbers on Mount Everest rather than the larger humanitarian crisis.
I was personally offended, perhaps even appalled, when I noticed this shift in coverage. The travails of people who can afford the cost of putting themselves in mortal danger for thrills don't rise to the level of suffering that those living there are enduring.
I understand that we naturally have an interest for those who are Americans, but please let's put this in perspective.
I was personally offended, perhaps even appalled, when I noticed this shift in coverage. The travails of people who can afford the cost of putting themselves in mortal danger for thrills don't rise to the level of suffering that those living there are enduring.
I understand that we naturally have an interest for those who are Americans, but please let's put this in perspective.
23
I agree totally. There has been coverage of the recuse efforts on the climbers and the climbers that died than on the thousands of people of Nepal that died.
1
Secondly, there is a widespread view that only certain lives matter. For example, did you know that very night of the year 15,000 to 20,000 children die around the world from preventable causes? No one blinks an eye-lid – the world carries on as if nothing transpired. Yet, if there is a school shooting in suburban America and 2 to 3 children are impacted, the news channels go into a frenzy and everyone is talking about it. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done an admirable job of trying to make the case that “all lives matter”.
Lastly, the media plays a significant role in shaping what people consume. Since most accept as gospel what they see on their cable channel (which is driven by viewership, ratings and dollars) people are fed a steady diet of what the media thinks they will like.