“Why is such an extensive and expensive effort being made to rescue five people who took a voluntary leisure excursion when thousands of migrants are constantly drowning in their effort to escape hardship, poverty, and war? While some of the Titan’s passengers paid $250,000 for their doomed trip, migrants are often penniless and are escaping to western countries to find work. Why aren’t nations working together to help them and save them from dying at sea?”
The world responds without prejudice when these kinds of out-of-the-ordinary accidents happen. Refugees is a completely separate issue and needs its own discussion. So does homelessness, Mental health, prescription drug abuse… Saving lives doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.
My criticism on this topic isn’t attached to the rescue efforts, but to the media coverage.
Attempting to save people is a good thing. There’s few people so truly undeserving that they don’t deserve the attempt, and I don’t trust myself to make that distinction.
But what made this story such catnip to everyone who had a platform?
Was it the submarine? A conveyance so exotic it captures the imagination. Was it the passengers? Not famous but wealthy, and easy to know about. Was it the destination? Our obsession with the Titanic has a constantly refreshing shelf life, it seems. Or was it more morbid— the imaginary oxygen clock ticking down breath by breath, trapped beneath an uncaring sea.
Whatever thing or combination it was, this story was goddamn everywhere.
But I don’t know that the media ought to carry all the blame. They supplied the drug, but it’s not like we haven’t taken the hit every chance we can get.
Every story about every development gets comments and discussions. The story is the star of many a “have you heard?” conversation. And every schmo with a classist axe to grind is gleefully grinding it in the briny deep.
But maybe I’m chasing the wrong thing here; moralising about what is printed, what is read, and what the “right” kind of news is. It might be that “news as entertainment” is just something people like, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong in it besides what I was taught and have imagined to be so. Perhaps in accepting it as valid, I can retrain those criticisms on what actually is healthy or unhealthy about it.
If I remember correctly the Chilean miner rescue was covered as extensively here in Germany as the search for the Titan. Another example would be the Kursk drama, which received huge media coverage as well. I think it’s that these dramas unfold over several days and thus capture the interest of the people. The coverage would be far less if the fate of the submersible has been known on day one, as is often the case with the horrible deaths in the Mediterranean.
Novelty is key here. Novelty + Titanic + billionaires + hubris equals an unbeatable level of novelty in any news cycle. Tragically, immigrants drowning is no longer novel. Speaking of novel, I highly recommend The Beekeeper of Aleppo for anyone wanting an insight into why people cram onto these little boats and set sail. Warning: it is harrowing. Also, a shoutout to the RNLI, whose volunteers carry on saving lives at sea in the face of criticism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65893789
I’d say if there were never refugees on a boat, and suddenly one appears and was in distress then tehre would be a lot of coverage (though even now there is a lot of coverage on the boats that capsize, and not much if any of the ones that arrive that are known).
If there were kids getting stuck in caves in Thailand every week, it would quickly become not-news-worthy.
Oh sure, we can discuss it. I just didn’t have much time to write a long comment!
This is a complicated issue, and the most obvious reason I would say is that these rich people and white explorers are more “important” than refugees, due to their background and money.
There is a debate on whether to allow refugees into citizen’s countries. If so, how many? Should you allow all of them? What if there was a catastrophe and 2 million people moved through Europe? What if 1 million refugees attempted to enter your country?
This is likely a never ending debate as the “answers” are valid for one group of people, and changes as societal standards change.
“Why is such an extensive and expensive effort being made to rescue five people who took a voluntary leisure excursion when thousands of migrants are constantly drowning in their effort to escape hardship, poverty, and war? While some of the Titan’s passengers paid $250,000 for their doomed trip, migrants are often penniless and are escaping to western countries to find work. Why aren’t nations working together to help them and save them from dying at sea?”
The reasons are pretty obvious.
2 incidents I can think of - Chilean miners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiap%C3%B3_mining_accident , Thai kids rescued from Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tham_Luang_cave_rescue. I’m sure ther are more , malaysia MH370…
The world responds without prejudice when these kinds of out-of-the-ordinary accidents happen. Refugees is a completely separate issue and needs its own discussion. So does homelessness, Mental health, prescription drug abuse… Saving lives doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.
My criticism on this topic isn’t attached to the rescue efforts, but to the media coverage.
Attempting to save people is a good thing. There’s few people so truly undeserving that they don’t deserve the attempt, and I don’t trust myself to make that distinction.
But what made this story such catnip to everyone who had a platform?
Was it the submarine? A conveyance so exotic it captures the imagination. Was it the passengers? Not famous but wealthy, and easy to know about. Was it the destination? Our obsession with the Titanic has a constantly refreshing shelf life, it seems. Or was it more morbid— the imaginary oxygen clock ticking down breath by breath, trapped beneath an uncaring sea.
Whatever thing or combination it was, this story was goddamn everywhere.
But I don’t know that the media ought to carry all the blame. They supplied the drug, but it’s not like we haven’t taken the hit every chance we can get.
Every story about every development gets comments and discussions. The story is the star of many a “have you heard?” conversation. And every schmo with a classist axe to grind is gleefully grinding it in the briny deep.
But maybe I’m chasing the wrong thing here; moralising about what is printed, what is read, and what the “right” kind of news is. It might be that “news as entertainment” is just something people like, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong in it besides what I was taught and have imagined to be so. Perhaps in accepting it as valid, I can retrain those criticisms on what actually is healthy or unhealthy about it.
If I remember correctly the Chilean miner rescue was covered as extensively here in Germany as the search for the Titan. Another example would be the Kursk drama, which received huge media coverage as well. I think it’s that these dramas unfold over several days and thus capture the interest of the people. The coverage would be far less if the fate of the submersible has been known on day one, as is often the case with the horrible deaths in the Mediterranean.
Novelty is key here. Novelty + Titanic + billionaires + hubris equals an unbeatable level of novelty in any news cycle. Tragically, immigrants drowning is no longer novel. Speaking of novel, I highly recommend The Beekeeper of Aleppo for anyone wanting an insight into why people cram onto these little boats and set sail. Warning: it is harrowing. Also, a shoutout to the RNLI, whose volunteers carry on saving lives at sea in the face of criticism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65893789
I’d say if there were never refugees on a boat, and suddenly one appears and was in distress then tehre would be a lot of coverage (though even now there is a lot of coverage on the boats that capsize, and not much if any of the ones that arrive that are known).
If there were kids getting stuck in caves in Thailand every week, it would quickly become not-news-worthy.
Even if the reasons are obvious it doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about it. Ever heard of doing something for the wrong reason?
Oh sure, we can discuss it. I just didn’t have much time to write a long comment!
This is a complicated issue, and the most obvious reason I would say is that these rich people and white explorers are more “important” than refugees, due to their background and money.
There is a debate on whether to allow refugees into citizen’s countries. If so, how many? Should you allow all of them? What if there was a catastrophe and 2 million people moved through Europe? What if 1 million refugees attempted to enter your country?
This is likely a never ending debate as the “answers” are valid for one group of people, and changes as societal standards change.