I'm struggling with the question of are the various media outlets reconcilable? Getting information online, on telie and from magazines feels like living in different worlds. I've given up hope on African news in the US - period! CNN's own admission in a PBS documentary that the depth and selection of topics of their news are totally different for European and American audiences - in depth analysis for Europeans and more like entertainment for Americans.
You read about 45,000 people dying each month in DRC online while the death of some young actor found dead in his NY apartment dominates the evening news on major news channels - even BBC world had to say something about it. Although I liked Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain and it's sad he died so young..., still I can't help wondering when 45,000 people dying each month would get the same attention?
Photo nicked from BBC online
A major mortality study released Tuesday by the InternationalRescue Committee revealed shocking information about the ongoinghumanitarian crisis in Congo. The study, which is being reported by major media outlets around the world, found that conflict and humanitarian crisis in Congohave claimed the lives of 5.4 million people since 1998 andcontinue to leave as many as 45,000 dead each month - making itthe world's deadliest crisis since World War II. (Source: IRC)
Is this really a matter of pure business sense - catering for the audience - or is it to do with the stark difference in the value of human life? The ratio 1:45,000 is not enough apparently.