Why is our life so cheap ??

Very enticing topic. There were just more bombs in Delhi which were diarmed. I guess people without other resources resort to desperate measure to be heard. It's tragic that we can't let everyone be heard all the time, but how to do that?

We don't want to be heard - just acknowledged as human beings, who feel, bleed and die!

As far as hearing is concerned, if not for the "realpolitik" in the sub continent - we could have screamed so loud that the perpetrators of these kind of crimes would have gone deaf.

Hmmmm, acknowledged...I think that's close to what I meant by heard.

When you say "Our life" you're speaking specifically about Indian life? Non euro-american life? I've wondered about that a lot. Rarely have so many died in an act of terrorism like the one in NYC, but many many people die all around the world and the numbers add up. And, you're right, we are basically un-informed about what's going on.

Actually I was on the train this morning and it was in the paper today. I generally don't read newspapers at all (this was a free Metro paper).

I'm sorry. I heard nothing of this and have searched the entire newspaper. Maybe there was something in the Seattle paper, but I let Mr.K take it to work while I keep the lesser local paper.

In the US it is partly racism, I think, but even more, it is insularity. The news here is filled with the 15 year old girl who was lost and has been found with pages of stories and photographs. I think that a journalists sometimes don't tie things together very well... it is news and we should know about it.

We want every person's life to be important but we apparently don't have enough general sympathy to spread around. I'm sorry. I'm sad to hear about this and I will be extra careful if ever I'm in Bombay.

That is very sad Gautam :-(

You don't hear anything about us Canadians either unless it's political that is.

It was reported here.

But, I agree with Gautam - loudness and emotionality of reporting is in almost geometric proportion, I think, to proximity geographically and also culturally.

In Oz this means that things go, in order of news-worthiness something like this: local, in Australia, in UK or USA or Papua/Niugiuni, in western Europe or in nearby Asian areas, other.

This is subject to being affected by other factors, of course eg - Iraq is big, of course - a huge tragedy in "other" will attract a lot of attention - Australians involved raises something on the horizon. Crass and tacky, but true.

I am sure implicit racism plays a big part - but I think a lot of it is also dependent on what ties and hence ability to empathise we have with a place.

I also agree with you, Gautam, that there is a sense in which places with huge populations where, to westerners, death seems commonplace in tragedies like famine, poverty etc strike less of a chord when another tragedy strikes than does the same tragedy where it seems more "out of place" and unexpected. I am in no way defending this, but I think that there is some truth in it.

Last of all, I think we respond most to tragedies in which we can most easily imagine ourselves being involved - so, the more we can identify with the victims, the more distressed we feel. I think for many people it is easier to imagine themselves in the WTC or Kings Cross tube station than on a train in Bombay. I have many friends who spend a lot of time in Asia and India for whom this would not be true, but I think it is generally true.

Lastest of all, I think the media co-creates this reality. "Distant" tragedies and news attract less attention - unless there are arresting images - so they are worth less money - so they are little shown - so westerners know less about those places - so they identify less - so they pay less attention - and on, round and round.


That is what I think, anyway!

This may sound really mean:
In the newspaper I used to work for, we had a minimum death toll formula for tragedies to appear on the front page:
In the city: 1 or 2 deaths, depending on the circumstance.
In the country: from 2 to 5 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
In the USA, Canada or Latin America: from 10 to 20 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
Europe: from 15 to 100 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
Elsewhere: from 50 to 300 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.

In other world, for a train wreck in India to make it, surely, to the front page, we needed 300 deaths.

Usually, a picture helps a tragedy to be put on the front page. We had only Mexican, American and French picture services, with their own interest.

The reasoning behind this is how "near" does the public sense those deaths. And it certainly says that, at least for newsmakers, not every life has the same ("newsworthy") value.
It's sadly true: once we published a great reportage on Africa, with incredible pictures. It turned out to be a bad sales day.

fbaezer - that is so sad.

This particular incident was covered in 3 of our local papers. It's comparative importance may have to do with the cultural mix here. By comparison, the case with the Mormon girl got very little coverage here.

fbaezer, interesting. I wonder what we could do to rectify this situation? I mean, newspapers ARE market-driven. They have to sell, or they go poof. So that means they have to make a product that people will buy.

I wish there were some kind of completely market-independent news source. Even PBS and NPR need to get money from regular people, right?

Most of the people on A2k are well-informed and make an effort to keep up with the news of the world, but I don't think most of America gives a damn what is happening in the world, which is why the networks no longer have bureaus in many of the world's major capitals. And why in most local papers throughout the US, International News takes up about 1/4 of one page. 9/11 doesn't seem to have changed things much if you ask me. Everyone wants to know whats happening in Iraq of course, but thats different. America is insulated and totally indifferent to most of the rest of the world. If 9/11 wasn't a wake-up call to most americans, I doubt anything can be done.

The New York Times had articles about the train blast and the BBC News that we get on PBS mentioned it, but I doubt it was in the Bradenton Florida Herald or any other smaller paper in the US.

Each day 30.000 people all over the globe die because they lack drinkable water. So that means each day ten WTC-towers get hit. And nobody knows, nobody cares. The media is strongly focused on Europe and the US because we buy their products. Information has become a consumptiongood just like French fries.

3 million people died in Congo since Mobutu was defeated by Kabilla and his rebels. Nobody knows, nobody cares. If we send 300.000 troops to Congo we could save some lives. Instead, we send troops to the desert and destroy some more lives.

our SOB). By all means, I would not advocate Belgian paratroopers' return to Africa: I do not hate Blacks, and I do not want them to be fried alive, like the Somali kids were. (See Beasts In Blue Berets)

Steissd, you really think i care about the Belgian Army. The only army in the world i favor is that of the Iceland.

Mobuto was not only the friend of Belgium but of the entire western world. He came after Lumumba (Everybody wanted him dead, The CIA tried to kill Lumumba with poisonned toothpaste because of his relation with the USSR)

In his youth Kabilla wasn't that popular in the US, Belgium, France,... because in 1965 Kabilla & Che Guevara fought side by side against Mobutu. But after his Victory the US, Belgian,... had to cooperate with him. He too got killed and now his son sits on the throne.

Iceland? What is good in its army? I have never heard about any battle won by it...
I agree that both Laurent Kabila and Joseph-Desiré Mobutu were thugs. If there were no diamonds and other natural resources in Congo, I do not think that he could have any good relations with the Western world. Unfortunately, majority of natural resources are deployed in the countries having dubious regimes...

Unfortunately, majority of natural resources are deployed in the countries having dubious regimes...=> Because its convenient for the West. Easier to controll.

I searched again in our newspapers and found nothing. This train blast was not in yesterday's London Times Online either.