Can somebody explain to me why the BBC news website has this as its third most popular story when it was last updated on April 3 . I thought I was reading about a new terror outrage at first .
Internet warriors doing research to support their arguments increasing the click rate?
Could it be something to do with the strange inequality in empathy which seems to be related to media coverage?
Which do you remember~ the Kenyan attack, or Charlie Hebdo?
How many lives were lost in each?
This nabbed from a facebook post sums it up very well:
I'm sorry to seem contentious but this whole selective grief movement is so very unsettling. I'm sure that all of the people I know that are changing their profiles are compassionate folk and the deaths in France are no less sad than any others but you have to ask yourself what the driving force behind this huge wave of public grief is. Is it the proximity to the action or the importance the story is given in the media? Is it because you know people that live there or you visited recently? Do any of these factors make the deaths in Paris more significant than those that happen around the world every day?The answer is obviously no, whatever way you look at it. Although I don't agree with the profile changes, I recognise the action of adopting the French flag comes from an empathetic place and although I don't think it's entirely appropriate I think this movement could be used in a positive way to help create a dialogue where we collectively start to look beyond the end of our noses. I too am guilty of turning a blind eye to injustices that are not well covered in western media. That's a huge part of the problem. We are ever more trained to regurgitate what is selectively fed to us but there are many decent alternative news sources out there and really there is no excuse to just accept the mainstream narrative. It's dangerous, divisive and unhealthy to do so.
I hope all the discussions that have resulted from this recent tragedy in the west can lead us further towards a compassionate world where we are informed and united, where we rally together to show our support and love for all those who are suffering across the world.
its true when it happens hear we do this
WHen a drone bombs a wedding party no one will believe me without a link and we hear almost nothing.
Its possibly a human nature thing but i guess the uncomfortable truth is its harder to avoid when nearer to you but we also seem to care more about deaths here rather than deaths over there
GEnuine Q time - I wonder of there is s similar effect in the arab world to events near to them to muslims and deaths further away to non muslims
It's pretty common for things to pop up again in the most read/watched sections months or years after they first appeared. I assume it reflects wider internet activity and trends somehow, dunno how it works though.
I wonder of there is s similar effect in the arab world to events near to them to muslims and deaths further away to non muslims
No doubt there is, but not limited to muslims. I expect that people generally care more (or at least in a different way) about tragedies in their own neighbourhoods than they do about ones in different countries.
What Mr Salmon said, no ones mentioned the gunman in Sydney as a similar event not that long ago.
Seems to be just human nature that we dont care so much if its a long way away.
Same as refugee/migrants in the EU VS those in OZ who seem to get treated even worse.
Events that happen close to home have a greater effect on you.
If there is a fatal RTA in your town, then it will probably be quite upsetting for you. Would you bother to read a news article on a similar event in Vancouver?
I could drive to Paris in 4 - 5 hours, Kenya would take a bit longer.
The other harsh reality, is that life is cheap in Africa. The life expectancy in Kenya is significantly lower than in the EU. They accept death on their roads and from disease etc at a level that we would find completely unacceptable.
It's human nature to care about those who look, dress and live like ourselves add to that geographically close and it's reasonable to be more concerned and feel more empathy.
That's not to say there isn't any for someone the other side of the world from a different culture, just not as much.
How do they do it so quickly?
Portable lighting sets, colour filters and generators?
or are suggesting that the caretaker at the Sydney Opera house was told last month to go and but a set of red, white and blue lighting sets, "just in case"?
It is also partly the reason why the terrorists can act as they do. It is easier to kill people who look and act a bit differently to you.
Very similar attack to the concert venue. Ordered to lie down then executed. (In Kenya they took the time to separate out the Christians for execution). There was quite rightly at the time a lot of companies,into that's this attack got less publicity than Charlie Ebdo/Super Kacher. I imagine campaign groups have been active in getting the story tongue top of "most read", chapeau to them for that
it's human psychology to pay attention to things which seem more relevant to us - they're more of a threat - Paris is closer, is a European city, a place many of us have been to, it was people 'just like me, out on a Friday after a week at work'...
Similar psychology to the way we held a memorial last year for the 52 people who were killed in the 2005 London bombings but we don't hold a memorial every 11 days for the same number of people killed on the roads, or hold a memorial for the 9,000 early deaths from pollution in London - these are 'hidden' events, happening slowly over time to 'other people'
I'm neither for nor against the way we express our reaction to what happens at times like this and am not criticising anyone for how they've chosen to respond, more interested in the lack of logic in human thinking...
The answer is simple. BBC News website links to similar or relevant stories to what you area reading. Given 10,000s are reading about Paris they'll follow the similar stories link. This means it gets pushed up, no conspiracy bullshit just a simple answer.
No.. I think it was a deliberate attempt by a certain sort of Internet activist to make a point. About what, I'm not so sure.
You may have a point, amongst all the french flags some people have been posting things like this:
[img] 
?oh=cb9d38ebfe0140640c97e53bd227493c&oe=56B3D0B2[/img]
[img] 
?oh=0511a54828124968bf00c47008eaf501&oe=56BB0A2E[/img]
Yes. Every single terrorist attack should be seen as opportunity to display right-on sanctimoniousness to as many people as possible.
How about working toward a solution that seems to elude the worlds current war hungry leaders?
To be fair if you're going to show empathy with dead people you never knew, you need to be selective, there are something like 107 billion dead humans and that number increases by about 60m a year at the moment, so you'd be in perpetual state of mourning if you weren't very selective.
I reckon it's the methods and motives of death that people take exception too:
[img] 
?oh=0a628a37d13996118532633c3d02e014&oe=56F146E4[/img]
Could it be something to do with the strange inequality in empathy which seems to be related to media coverage?Which do you remember~ the Kenyan attack, or Charlie Hebdo?
Do you think you'd have the same emotional response to the hypothetical death of your partner, or the hypothetical death of a person you've never heard of in Tonga?
Would you think the difference is binary or on some sort of continuum?
That we have variable emotional responses based on familiarity isn't exactly strange.
Fair logic~ does that mean familiarity comes down to what the media decides to broadcast?
Which of these images stirs more familiary and why?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Good points from brooess.
I think the reasons behind where we direct our grief are complex. Why did the drowning of the little Syrian refugee stir more grief than all those children killed in the chemical attack in Syria a couple of years ago?
It goes beyond tragedies- why do cancer charities attract so much more in public donations than other equally deserving causes? Why did the killing of Cecil the lion create such an uproar, when there 100s of less visually appealing (but equally important to ecology) animals dying from destruction of their environment?
Fair logic~ does that mean familiarity comes down to what the media decides to broadcast?
It very much does.
But do you think the top 10 stories in the say London are the same as the top 10 stories in Nairobi?
So the media directs the news, but of course this is a two way process. Do you think a London new media outlet would last very long if it broadcast the top 10 stories in Nairobi?
And if you are only broadcasting 10 stories, do you think you can adequately cover the amount of good and bad 7 billion people generate on a daily basis?
What Mr Salmon said, no ones mentioned the gunman in Sydney as a similar event not that long ago.
The Sydney cafe siege was rather different in fact. He was not IS and his attack was not related to Syria or IS or Al Qaeda. It was much more in the vein of "bad tempered misogynist with a shotgun doesn't get his way and precipitates a siege" - of which there have been quite a few in australia.
Do you think a London new media outlet would last very long if it broadcast the top 10 stories in Nairobi?
Having worked a fair bit there, it's mainly local political stories about their constitution, corruption and politicians. Their radio phone ins and actually much more high brow than Jeremy Vine, people phone in to debate the finer points of law or their constitution. Quite surprising after listening to UK phone ins which are about as low brow as you can get without just grunting...