Later that day, I went to check the New York Times website again, where I found that a new article was posted, one that had much more detail. However, the article was still placed near the bottom of the website, making it something that a reader had to search for, rather than it being breaking, headline news. Similarly, the wording of the article was "small bomb," small being the second word of the article and a word that downplays the significance of the attack. Today, looking at the article again, I have noticed that the word "small" has been removed, however, on the day of the explosion it did exist.
If a terrorist attack like this happened in another country, wouldn't it have gotten more attention? If a family was slaughtered in the middle of the night in the United States, wouldn't there be an uproar? If all these events were happening anywhere but Israel, I have a feeling that it would make headline news and that sadly people would give it slightly more attention.
As more information is revealed and the more the public shows interest towards a situation, the more a newspaper will feel a need to adapt/show coverage for the readers. At the same time, it is the newspaper and media, which draw people towards a situation. If a newspaper feels it is important, it will be front page, big letters, making it impossible to miss. Clearly, the tragedies, which occurred in Israel, are not the world’s most important issue at the moment. Until the world shows more sympathy, it will always be in little print, on the bottom of the newspaper.
ReplyDelete