Forgotten Places

      

The mainstream media (MSM) creates and defines our reality. If we see a story on TV, then it must be real and it must be important.  The media pundits and talking heads will debate these stories thus elevating them to prominence within our national discourse. But what about the stories that don't make it to television or print media? Many stories are forgotten simply because the media chooses not to cover them. In their failure to cover such stories, thousands of lives are thrown into the dustbin of history while media monopolies profit from their info-tainment programming.

In Nicholas Kristof's column All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt, he lambastes the media (including his own "liberal" New York Times) for failing to give any attention to the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan:

If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur.

The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads.

So while we have every right to criticize Mr. Bush for his passivity, I hope that he criticizes us back. We've behaved as disgracefully as he has.

So far in 2005, the stories that have received 24-hour MSM coverage have included a dying brain-dead woman, a living brain-dead woman, an exonerated child molestor, and the dying and death of a Polish hero. If the media is so "liberal" as most conservatives claim, then why doesn't the media focus more on widespread issues of human rights and human suffering--typical points of liberal fascination--rather than sensational tales of personal drama?

I think our culture has a strong strain of sadism. The media covers stories about sensational violence which serve as pure entertainment value. Here in Southern California the local news will devote hours on end to police car chases that end in bloody shoot-outs. But when it comes to real violence in the world that humans could stop or prevent, the media and the public tend to look the other way. The media monopolies choose to either promote violence (cheerleading for the Iraq War) or simply ignore it (Darfur genocide, chaos in Haiti, oppression in Burma, etc).

In Darfur, about 400,000 black Sudanese have been systematically killed by government-sanctioned Arab "Janjaweed" militias. The complacency of both the media and the public is to blame. The United States declared the crimes in Darfur as genocide last year but has done little to stop the killing. The U.N. has done even less.  Have we not learned from the lessons of Rwanda? Bill Clinton just publicly apologized for failing to intervene to stop the 1994 Rwandan genocide. At the time he was probably too busy trying to grope interns or stop Newt Gingrich from taking over the Congress.

Links about other Forgotten Places:

• Truth Out:  UN Sees East Congo as Worse Crisis Than Darfur
• Amnesty International:  Crisis In Haiti
• The Heretik:  Dog Days (Haiti)
• Freiheit und Wissen:  Free Haiti - A Month of Tragedy
• Darfur: A Genocide We Can Stop
• Save Darfur
• The Burma Campaign

technorati: Darfur  Sudan  Haiti

Comments

[Mark]

My co-worker said something incredibly poignant: "What's happening there is too real."

We'd rather think about the Jackson trial or Tom Cruise because it's easier to digest than looking at ourselves, as a species, and realize the horrors of which we're capable.

I know I've neglected this issue on my own blog, but that's going to have to change.

[An Angry Old Broad]

I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance,or just being spoiled and insulated.

My mom loves "her"bible,"her"god,and"her president",and she doesn't want to hear about the war,it's too ugly.Those poor people in Africa?Aww,that's so sad.

I guess what bothers me the most on this,is that the USA could use all that military muscle for some good on this one,but there's no money in it.Sitting around arguing about the definition of genocide while it's occuring probably isn't all that helpful either.I know the solution isn't a simple one,but I still can't help but think this could have been solved,or at least lessened if there was a priority to do it.

[karena]

Angry Old Broad, I remember when traitor, Colin Powell, first declared that Darfur did not meet the definition of genocide. I will never forget that as long as I live. It was stunning then, and shamefull forever.
Agit, thank you for taking on what is really wrong with our culture. Hillary goes around bitching about a few minutes of seedy animation of sex buried in a video game called Grand Theft Auto, and yet goes along with every word Bush and McCain say about staying the course in Iraq. I am so tired of death being preferable to sex.

[Joe Snitty]

Bottom line, as I see it, is simply this: There are lean pickings for the war profiteers, there are no corporate interests at stake and white people aren't being killed.

Odds of significant US intervention: Zero.