Yes, Schiavo is starving, but so are 815 million other people worldwide

[Milla]

I think the news doesn't like to run stories because people don't like seeing the misery around them, it's easier to start fights about others' misery. I bet if we had stories about poverty on every night, I'm sure we'd see a change in the public's outlook of the poor.

I think you're right. So the question is: how could one get such stories into the media that the Average American commonly consumes? Any ideas, anyone?

 

[faerieevaH]

I'm afraid though that 'putting those stories' of general poverty on the news will only lead to more indifference about them, because people have the general feeling that 'they can't do anything about it'.
The problem is twofold: a lack of identification which leads to not feeling responsible, as well as a lack of 'power' or 'ability to change something'. (there's a word in English that I'm looking for and it completely escapes me at this very moment). It's like the Tsunami: people want to care. People want to help. But now that the big 'news' and shock is over... they want to move on. They've done what they could. For a moment they felt in control to be able to help, because there was a mass appeal. 10 dollars can't help. 10 million dollars can. But ask the same people to donate for the Tsunami in a year... and you will have much more difficulty to raise the same amount. IT's not news anymore, now it's an 'existing situation'. And people don't have the idea they can change that. Terri is not a 'situation' to them... and they have the feeling they CAN do something by protesting, by calling their congresmen. They can't save millions, but they can save one. At least that is the numbing feeling that stops them from helping millions.

When I was teaching about the "father Damian' action in Belgium, which is workign yearly against lepra and tbc, children in my class said that this 'wasn't as important as the Tsunami'. Why? The Tsunami had brought a change in an existing situation, that's why they felt.. powerful enough to do something. But after one month... they were Tsunami tired as well. There was 'too much of the Tsunami'. The misery hadn't ended by what they had done and they wanted to care back about thigns they could 'change'.

 

[Milla]

But ask the same people to donate for the Tsunami in a year... and you will have much more difficulty to raise the same amount. IT's not news anymore, now it's an 'existing situation'. And people don't have the idea they can change that. Terri is not a 'situation' to them... and they have the feeling they CAN do something by protesting, by calling their congresmen. They can't save millions, but they can save one. At least that is the numbing feeling that stops them from helping millions.

This is interesting. But it seems certain that a change on the governmental level, improving goverment foreign (and domestic, for that matter) aid programs could result in improved conditions that would save lives and offer opportunites for personal betterment for those in extreme need. If voters saw this as a crucial issue, they could exercise those same techniques - protesting, contacting legislative officials, voting for those who offer progressive action against world poverty and disease. The question is how to convince people that this would be feasable, or at least that it is an effort worth making for an affluent nation as a whole - to de-numb them, if you will.

 

[Glaz]

I think you're right. So the question is: how could one get such stories into the media that the Average American commonly consumes? Any ideas, anyone?

Make whatever cause your championing seem like a truly imminent threat to the average person. Awareness and charity for AIDS used to be really big in America when people thought they could get it from a drinking fountain. When they found out you can't, well, eh, its not that big a deal then. You have to find a way to use peoples inherent selfishness to your advantage. People have to be going to bed mortally afraid that if we don't cure AIDS in Africa then they are going to wake up and find half of America is dead from it. Otherwise its just going to be 'oh, that can never happen here. That can never happen to me, I am safe'. Its hard getting people to care alot when they don't feel like its their problem.

 

[Evee]

Make whatever cause your championing seem like a truly imminent threat to the average person. Awareness and charity for AIDS used to be really big in America when people thought they could get it from a drinking fountain. When they found out you can't, well, eh, its not that big a deal then. You have to find a way to use peoples inherent selfishness to your advantage. People have to be going to bed mortally afraid that if we don't cure AIDS in Africa then they are going to wake up and find half of America is dead from it. Otherwise its just going to be 'oh, that can never happen here. That can never happen to me, I am safe'. Its hard getting people to care alot when they don't feel like its their problem.

Yes absolutely right in my opinion.
That is why we have to make people understand what happened to Terri may happen to the mentally challenged, our parents, grandparents, and even us.

 

[Milla]

Yes absolutely right in my opinion.
That is why we have to make people understand what happened to Terri may happen to the mentally challenged, our parents, grandparents, and even us.

TAKE THE TERRI SCHIAVO DISCUSSION TO ONE OF THE MYRIAD TERRI SCHIAVO THREADS, PLEASE.

Thank you.

 

[The Great Pumpkin]

TAKE THE TERRI SCHIAVO DISCUSSION TO ONE OF THE MYRIAD TERRI SCHIAVO THREADS, PLEASE.

Thank you.

Perhaps it is just me, but maybe not having titled your thread "Yes, Schiavo is starving, but so are 815 million other people worldwide" would have helped.

As for your OP:

There are a plethora of topics being discussed here at CF. A person addressing one particular issue that is in the limelight does not in any shape, form or fashion preclude a deep interest and concern on another issue whether related or not. I am sure you understand this so I am left with the conclusion that this OP relfects a certain antipathy regarding the Shiavo case. This is my opinion based on observation, particularly on an OP that seems uncertain of where this discussion is supposed to be going.

Are you attempting to address the starving people of the world? Are you talking about the members who wish to discuss the Shiavo case? Are you talking about "posting patterns" regarding particular issues of interest at CF or something else? I am lost in regard to the point of this discussion. Perhaps telling other people to take their discussion else where is not appropriate given an unclear purpose to this threads topic, or perhaps lack thereof.

 

[Milla]

As most people who've engaged in this thread's discussion seem to understand, the purpose of the thread is to discuss why the posters at CF, and the US media in general, focus on individual cases such as Ms. Schiavo's while nearly ignoring the millions of other tragedies going on worldwide.

 

[The Great Pumpkin]

As most people who've engaged in this thread's discussion seem to understand, the purpose of the thread is to discuss why the posters at CF, and the US media in general, focus on individual cases such as Ms. Schiavo's while nearly ignoring the millions of other tragedies going on worldwide.

I answered that in my reply as well. There are thread discussions from "What's your favorite color" to "New Species of Shrimp Discovered." There are a plethora of discussions going on simultaneously here. Any one discussion does not preclude a member's deep-seated interest and passion for another.

Given your OP I must ask you: How does talking about a highly publicized issue seemingly translate to no one caring about millions of people dying around the world? Particularly since there are members like me who donate annually to such causes as hunger and disease.

 

[k]

As most people who've engaged in this thread's discussion seem to understand, the purpose of the thread is to discuss why the posters at CF, and the US media in general, focus on individual cases such as Ms. Schiavo's while nearly ignoring the millions of other tragedies going on worldwide.

To me, it's obvious. Ms. Schavo's case does not require sacrifice. It affords the posturing of compassion without the cost of actually sacrificing anything significant. I am sure many posters on CF donate, so I am speaking more to the media and the US in general.

 

[santalucia]

I answered that in my reply as well. There are thread discussions from "What's your favorite color" to "New Species of Shrimp Discovered." There are a plethora of discussions going on simultaneously here. Any one discussion does not preclude a member's deep-seated interest and passion for another.

Given your OP I must ask you: How does talking about a highly publicized issue seemingly translate to no one caring about millions of people dying around the world? Particularly since there are members like me who donate annually to such causes as hunger and disease.

It doesn't of course. It is just an excuse to try and bash conservatives or pro-lifers.

 

[Western Deity]

^ LOL. I hope you're not serious .

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I think the problem with our news media is that it's all about "hitting the numbers" (a phrase taken from the WorldCom case). There is an obsession with just getting ratings, so they plaster the airwaves with infotainment instead of information. The one thing you learn when you leave the US is that a lot of other countries cover news instead of infotainment, and the general public is more informed. The only country that I have seen do overkill on a story was Japan, and that was a case with Japanese nationals returning from Korea after being kidnapped for over a decade.

But I think this is what is eventually degrading our markets and our minds. The plethora of infotainment just makes us more ignorant. Hitting the numbers has also created the same effect in entertainment, look at Disney or the hundreds of reality TV shows. They are are just obsessed with the bottom line and don't seem to do what they should. News should be informative. Animation and film should be art. When you deviate from this, you get into a machine like formula trying to make more money, but creating a model that will eventuall crash.

 

[santalucia]

^ LOL. I hope you're not serious .

Hey WD. What are you seeking?

I'm totally serious by the way.

 

[Western Deity]

Nobody tries to bash conservatives or pro-lifers just for the sake of it . And I'm not really sure what I am seeking.

 

[santalucia]

Nobody tries to bash conservatives or pro-lifers just for the sake of it . And I'm not really sure what I am seeking.

Oh, maybe YOU wouldn't. But be careful of saying nobody!

 

[pegatha]

It is just an excuse to try and bash conservatives or pro-lifers.

I think there's an element of truth to that. Most of the mainstream American media is pro-abortion. Terri Schiavo, through no fault of her own, has become a sort of pro-life poster child. The attention she's getting isn't so much for her own sake, as that she's a pawn between two powerful political forces. And Milla, much as I understand your desire not to have this thread focus on Terri's mental state, what you need to understand is that her mental state is at the heart of the issue. If she were truly brain dead, there would have been no controversy. Her parents surely wouldn't have insisted on feeding & hydrating a body with no functioning brain. They are fighting this battle precisely because they're convinced that she's alive and aware of her surroundings; therefore, her mental state is the heart of the conflict, not a peripheral issue.

Now, as if that weren't enough... there are the Constitutional issues involved. The American system is supposed to be one of laws made by the elected representatives of the people and enforced by appointed judges. While I don't know all the legal ins and outs of Terri's case, I can tell you that the decisions to remove her feeding tube were made by judges, in violation of laws made by elected officials. This may not sound like a significant decision to someone who isn't a US citizen. But as an American, I see this as a very, very important issue, indeed. The final decision needs to remain in the hands of our elected officials, who are ultimately accountable to the voters. Otherwise, America is going to end up as a very different place than the Founding Fathers envisioned. That's one more major reason why this case resonates with so many Americans.

 

[philosopherthales]

The Media is a business. It is designed to make money, and promote a culture within itself that serves that goal. Its content is determined by various citizens in various positions though, and as citizens, they have just as much responsibility as other citizens (yes, that includes you). So, the extent of the hypocrisy in some of you attacking the media for not promoting the truth, is dependant on how much you do so yourself. What you guys are calling for is that the average Joe or Jane reporter should make a conscious effort of trying to cover what is not covered, present facts that have not be presented, explain things in the best way possible with the media type used. They should look at the news objectively, but at the same time, be completely passionate about the truth getting out and be an activist in causes. All that stuff is a little tricky and can many other people genuinely say that they go through these mental processes when they post on CF for instance?



I personally think the media is doing an ok job, yet not a good job. The amount of access to information available now is greater than in the past. All in all, I think it is a citizen’s fault for being ill-informed. I see people everywhere with such drastic differences in how much they know about the world, yet they have the same media resources. That leads me to believe people have all the information they need and the difference lies in the person and their choices. If all it takes is for citizens to not rely on big time media for their news to fix a problem, then the fault of that problem not being fixed lies squarely on their shoulders.



The poverty issue:

It is pretty simple. All justifications that lead to it not being dealt with are fallacious. It is bigger than terrorism(a 9-11 every single day at least), it is bigger and more important than any issue in the U.S.(it affects more than a billion rather than 300 million). It is ironically, easily dealt with and affluent nations have a huge control on if this problem is wiped out or not. An individual has many times more control over this compared to Shiavo. Congress doesn’t have control over whether Shiavo lives or dies. Congress could cut the military budget to only 1/4 the worlds military budget and instead feed everyone on Earth, provide access to un-contaminated drinking water, and provide medical care where needed. There is a question of whether Shiavo should live or die, there is no question whether black people in Africa should die even though it is harder to relate to a black person. Ok, that is a little harsh. But to some degree it is true. If you doubt me, take this racial bias test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html . Any subconscious racial bias would of course affect how “close to home” African poverty will hit.

 

[praying]

personally I don't get the whole thing with Schiavo either. As for why the discrepancy, its all about the media driven culture: put something on the news enough, and people will care. This explains the undue fascination that the Scott Peterson case got. Something a bit Orwellian about it I think. We care about what the TV tells us to care about. The TV says 'give' and we give. If the TV says 'this guy is bad' then that guy is bad, end of story. If the TV said 'we have always been at war with blahblahblah', then I imagine people would eventually come to believe that despite what their own senses tell them. Orwell really was a man head of his time.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SoupySayles again.

 

[praying]

Slowly yet surely, the line between modern liberalism and naziism is fading. Hitler called for the extermination of disabled and mentally-handicapped persons. Now we see liberals demanding death-by-starvation for Terri, which they call "mercy killing," as well as the extermination of "impure" and "unwanted" babies.

Liberalism makes me physically ill. I will do all within my strength to see that liberalism is destroyed, for the sake of my children and their children.

liberal. adjective.
1. respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one's own. favourable to individual rights and freedoms.
2. favouring individual liberty, free trade and moderate political and social reform.
3. concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

Which parts do you find similar to Naziism?

The parts in their collective conservative imagination.