Friday, April 19, 2013
The difference between Boston and West
Boston: Explosions. Three dead, dozens wounded. Nation's reaction: Grief, wailing, rending of clothing, a Presidential appearance at a memorial service, "Boston Strong", moving renditions of The Star Spangled Banner. (Amazing Grace and Hallelujah are, I'm sure, soon to follow.)
West, Texas: Explosion. At least five dead, dozens wounded. Nation's reaction: "Gee, there's some lousy luck right there. Meh."
Is it because one was caused by *gasp* terrorists, and the other was (evidently) caused by some plant operator falling asleep at the switch? Do lives lost to terrorism somehow mean more than lives lost to a fertilizer explosion? Do they?
Can someone explain this to me? I'm having a hard time understanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Interesting. Both tragedies are in the media here, too -- but I suppose we don't get the national feel from the U.S., they just publish an equal amount of reports and photos of both incidents.
Media is hypocritical though...many other international examples as well; people get killed every week in, say, Iraq, but the media here have forgotten about that region for the most part. Of course, when something like this happens in a western world, it is not seen as usual and therefore becomes big news...but still, lives are being lost elsewhere too, frequently, with no media coverage.
I think Texas would be a bigger story, but you can't put a manhunt up against a body search.
I'm with you. First part of my post yesterday.
You know, I'm doing the exact same thing. All day today, it was Boston Boston Boston, with occasional breaks to West. And I don't know why.
I think it's just a different context. Boston was an intentional, malicious act; Texas was an accident. I don't think the lives lost are less meaningful, but they're less captivating. Accidents happen and are very very sad. Terrorist attacks don't usually happen here, so they warrant pause: Who? Why? How are humans capable of doing this to one another? These are lingering questions.
Then there's the fact that it was the Boston Marathon, which means it wasn't just about that one city and its locals. We can't just say, "Oh, poor Boston," and be thankful that it didn't happen here because it kind of did happen here.
Of course then there's the media as others have mentioned. It's hard not to get caught up in the things they want us to get caught up in.
Besides the media’s tendency to follow the story with the most dramatic video feed, the events in Boston posed no risk to power. In fact they were priceless PR for the drive toward ever-greater military-industrial governmental spending.
The media rarely if ever calls close attention to the crimes of power that pose a much greater day-to-day risk to more Americans that the acts of any so-called terrorists.
Unfortunately building dangerous facilities in the midst of residential and business areas, and allowing homes, nursing homes, hospitals, schools and playgrounds to be built alongside them, is the result of a corrupt process that is common in towns and cities across America, where corporations routinely have their way with local planning and zoning commissions, safety inspectors and city councils.
Why Boston and not Tiny-town, Texas? Kate covered my first opinion....that people are actively more passionate about tragedies from deliberate acts of malice than from accidents. Anger is louder than sadness. I think it may also be a matter of "majority rules"....does American expect to hear the score from a Boston College game or a game from a teeny college in the middle of Texas that no one is acquainted with? It doesn't mean it is RIGHT; it's just how human nature has evolved. Ginny
Good points, all. I remember that old newsroom adage, "If it bleeds, it leads." Add terrorism and a big city, and there ya go.
And Marcy, thanks for stopping by. I hadn't even thought of the whole "nursing home next to a fertilizer plant" angle.
I came back to add a comment, but it looks like Marcy covered it already. My old linguistics professor wrote a recent, brief blog bost about this ("state sponsored terrorism"): http://crankylinguist.blogspot.com/
Kate, I'm having a hard time equating weak zoning laws with state-sponsored terrorism. But going through the fracking wars here in Upstate, it's an interesting idea.
As usual, money talks. Deep-pocketed corporations have it; me and my neighbors don't.
Do I think all industry should be banned? Of course not. Hoo boy, it's complicated ...
Post a Comment