Blogenlust

In terms of newsworthiness, is terrorism against white people really more important than terrorism against people in the Middle East?

It's not a silly question, because Soledad O'Brien is currently reporting from London, asking questions of Londoners like, "How do you feel?", "How has your life changed?", and "What does this mean for us?"

She's not, of course, asking the same questions of the people of Sharm al-Sheikh or.  Even though these attacks were even more deadly, and in the case of those in Iraq, more frequent, the response from the media has been so overwhelmingly disproportionate, placing an emphasis on London that would make it seem like the worst terrorist attack since 9/11.  The reality, though, is that the London attacks, while horrible in themselves, are pretty average compared to all the attacks since 9/11. 

But, for me at least, what's odd about the media's response is not necessarily their disproportionate coverage.  Instead, I think there's something more subtle at play here.  It's almost as though they're treating their coverage of London as a practice run for when terrorism next happens here.  Or, put another way, it's almost like they had this pre-existing template for how to cover terrorism that was quickly put into place after the London attacks.  That might explain why their coverage is a bit over the top--perhaps their template called for a larger attack, but they decided to go with it anyway. Is anyone else noticing this?  Does it really seem like they're just a little too eager to cover terrorism against white people?

Baghdad. Even though these attacks were even more deadly, and in the case of those in Iraq, more frequent, the response from the media has been so overwhelmingly disproportionate, placing an emphasis on London that would make it seem like the worst terrorist attack since 9/11. The reality, though, is that the London attacks, while horrible in themselves, are pretty average compared to all the attacks since 9/11.

But, for me at least, what's odd about the media's response is not necessarily their disproportionate coverage. Instead, I think there's something more subtle at play here. It's almost as though they're treating their coverage of London as a practice run for when terrorism next happens here. Or, put another way, it's almost like they had this pre-existing template for how to cover terrorism that was quickly put into place after the London attacks. That might explain why their coverage is a bit over the top--perhaps their template called for a larger attack, but they decided to go with it anyway. Is anyone else noticing this? Does it really seem like they're just a little too eager to cover terrorism against white people?