So I'm back from the writing hiatus I took because of school, track, etc., and I am sad to report that the USA Today, my favorite news source, has let me down for the first time in memory. On Thursday (May 29), they printed a small story in the World News section about the banning of cluster bombs. For those of you who haven't heard, a global summit held in Dublin comprised of about 100 countries agreed to a treaty banning use of cluster bombs by said countries' military, to be signed in December. Now, I listen to the BBC World Service about three times a week to get caught up on world news, and when this happened, it was a major story. Do you know what the kicker of the story was? China, the U.S., Russia, Israel, and Pakistan refused to sign the treaty, the U.S. in particular being of emphasis. Now I'm not saying cluster bombs are good, or bad, necessary or unnecessary, but wouldn't it seem like bad publicity for a country with moral standard like the U.S. to boycott such talks? After all, cluster bombs have serious accuracy issues, and particles can lie dormant for years without explosion. Back to the USA Today article, it failed to mention that the U.S. did not take part in the talks, and made clear it would not sign the treaty. I personally think the ban is good, but who knows what the U.S.' reasons were. My issue is the fact that the USA Today didn't tell you what the U.S. did. Is this because of the negative public opinion that could be associated with these actions? Possibly, but again I am only conjecturing. I was just surprised and disappointed with this exclusion of pivotal facts.
This story does however give me an opportunity to talk about a joke. The joke is world news in this country. That might have sounded a little harsh, but I can't put it any other way. I have come to the conclusion that the only world news we ever see on television is A: How our military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there is nothing wrong with this), B: A major political upheaval or natural disaster (such as the ones in Kosovo, Zimbabwe, China, and Myanmar), and finally C: Some crazy off the wall time filler (like some guy driving down the Spanish Steps). Think of it this way. The current U.S. presidential election is an issue all over the world, being covered by nearly every news agency in nearly every country. When was the last time you heard about political issues in South America? What is more important, the U.S., or the World? To citizens, maybe the U.S., but the media here skims over all but the most broad of topics, broad meaning for example the China Olympics and Tibetan protests. Then, when there is a major disaster, BAM!, world news! Suddenly the rest of the world is important again, but instead of reporting actual news, they beat the story to death to get all the "international coverage" they can out of it. Two weeks after the tragic earthquake in China, there were still captions on the front pages of newspapers reading things like "China still recovering from quake". No effing duh, of course they are, and they still will be for years to come. Is that news? Are captions like that going to appear on every issue for a decade? They are creating stories where there are none. Unless something new comes to light in the wake of these disasters, there is relatively nothing to write about. What does this apparent lack of quality and quantity regarding international news mean? That's for you to decide. Maybe Americans don't want to hear about some issues of other countries. Maybe the media is just doing what it can to sell itself to the public. All I am saying is that I dislike the media's approach to world news, and I think they should include a greater amount of relevant world issues in they're coverage.
This story does however give me an opportunity to talk about a joke. The joke is world news in this country. That might have sounded a little harsh, but I can't put it any other way. I have come to the conclusion that the only world news we ever see on television is A: How our military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there is nothing wrong with this), B: A major political upheaval or natural disaster (such as the ones in Kosovo, Zimbabwe, China, and Myanmar), and finally C: Some crazy off the wall time filler (like some guy driving down the Spanish Steps). Think of it this way. The current U.S. presidential election is an issue all over the world, being covered by nearly every news agency in nearly every country. When was the last time you heard about political issues in South America? What is more important, the U.S., or the World? To citizens, maybe the U.S., but the media here skims over all but the most broad of topics, broad meaning for example the China Olympics and Tibetan protests. Then, when there is a major disaster, BAM!, world news! Suddenly the rest of the world is important again, but instead of reporting actual news, they beat the story to death to get all the "international coverage" they can out of it. Two weeks after the tragic earthquake in China, there were still captions on the front pages of newspapers reading things like "China still recovering from quake". No effing duh, of course they are, and they still will be for years to come. Is that news? Are captions like that going to appear on every issue for a decade? They are creating stories where there are none. Unless something new comes to light in the wake of these disasters, there is relatively nothing to write about. What does this apparent lack of quality and quantity regarding international news mean? That's for you to decide. Maybe Americans don't want to hear about some issues of other countries. Maybe the media is just doing what it can to sell itself to the public. All I am saying is that I dislike the media's approach to world news, and I think they should include a greater amount of relevant world issues in they're coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment