• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Explosion in Waco/West

#43
SnowCal said:
Tragedy isn't why Boston isn't getting coverage.
Click to expand...

I disagree it isn't about tragedy. It very much is getting coverage due to the tragic nature of it.

I do agree though that the reason it gets coverage on media seems to be the "mystery" surrounding it.

The Texas explosion is cut and dry. Fertilizer blew up. No people to hunt down or anything like that.

What's interesting though is how Americans (or maybe the world for all I know) seem to quickly bypass tragedy. Which is sort of a point I've been opining. That if it is not about a tragedy, then we've moved quickly to forget the human element.
 
#46
Febs said:
You sure post an awful lot for someone who isn't arguing and has no opinion.
Click to expand...

If people are quoting me, I have no right to respond? I didn't say I didn't have* an opinion. OPINE is a word that is related to OPINION.

ARGUING is something I'm not really doing. Discussing would be appropriate. Since I have no position, I'm merely engaging information.

Ooops, I posted again! I'm not allowed to do that. I met my quota.

Cripes, people...and I'm the opinionated, arrogant one? :rolleyes:

I have a tendency to respond to people who direct themselves at me. It's called, "engaging".

I don't have any problem with differing opinions. It doesn't matter to me whether the coverage is one way or another or equal. Just opining on information.
 
#51
michael_atw said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Huh? You've got me very mixed up with someone else.

That's the difference between me and you. I work at home and I have noticed.

If you (or anyone else) are going to chastise me, at least be on hand to present the information in a manner with which I have. I have been fllipping through the "big three" and the cable news networks for hours.

Once again, I'm merely thinking about it.
Click to expand...

whoops! Yep I sure did mix you up with another poster....you and he had a bunch of posts on the same page. I've been freaked out for the past 3 days on top of my normal sleep deprivation as of late.

So you're saying that the difference in the coverage of the two events shows how Americans quickly gloss over tragedy? Well I'm not seeing it, but at least I know what you are trying to say
 
#52
michael_atw said:
Are they spending hours and hours on it?

I've been watching TV news and "talk show" news all morning. Very little coverage.

FoxNews has been the only one providing significant coverage.

Compared to Boston, they spent 2 days straight on it and the news today about Texas is being superceded by Boston still. Even comedians were in on that.

I just find it interesting. So far. Perception might change but on "talk show" news they are all singing and cooking. Very interesting to me.
Click to expand...

I think that may be because the bombing in Boston was an act or terrorism and the explosion in West was an accident. Doesn't make one more tragic than the other, but that may be what you're perceiving.
 
#53
macaroni tony said:
whoops! Yep I sure did mix you up with another poster....you and he had a bunch of posts on the same page. I've been freaked out for the past 3 days on top of my normal sleep deprivation as of late.
Click to expand...

No problem :p

macaroni tony said:
OK, so what is interesting to you about the fact that the two events are being covered differently?
Click to expand...

I don't know, really. Well, to be honest and put myself out for maybe flaming, but I see a whole mess of bleeding heart melodrama on social media. I see this from personal experience and that which the news media uses in their segments.

I just get the feeling there will be slim to none with regards to this Texas Explosion. Just like the earthquake.

It seems like there is a whole mess of superficial coverage on media meant to fill slots and they use the "trending" tags on social media to cover things. They might not see so much "pray for West Texas" trending and not care. It also seems like they do a "follow the leader" thing. I'd bet if for example ABC cut out to it for hours the others would follow in lock-step.

And then, the aforementioned "mystery" that doesn't exist.

Although, my opinion is purely subjective which is why I would find it interesting if someone did a study in the near future on media (both news and social) and how it reacted to both tragedies. From a numbers (death toll, destruction, etc) standpoint, the Texas one was and is far more significant by all accounts.

As for the "national security", I see that...but the Webster firefighter shooting up here got significant regional and national coverage and that was not related to national security. Neither were all the school massacres and they, as you well know, received endless coverage to the point of having to turn off the TV.
 
#54
michael_atw said:
No problem :p



I don't know, really. Well, to be honest and put myself out for maybe flaming, but I see a whole mess of bleeding heart melodrama on social media. I see this from personal experience and that which the news media uses in their segments.

I just get the feeling there will be slim to none with regards to this Texas Explosion. Just like the earthquake.

It seems like there is a whole mess of superficial coverage on media meant to fill slots and they use the "trending" tags on social media to cover things. They might not see so much "pray for West Texas" trending and not care.

And then, the aforementioned "mystery" that doesn't exist.

Although, my opinion is purely subjective which is why I would find it interesting if someone did a study in the near future on media (both news and social) and how it reacted to both tragedies. From a numbers (death toll, destruction, etc) standpoint, the Texas one was far more significant by all accounts.
Click to expand...

OK well I see where you're coming from. The Texas explosion was a sudden and much more destructive singular event than the bombing in Bawstin, but the bombing in Bawstin has much further-reaching implications.

From what I've seen last night on TV and today on the interwebz, West, Texas is getting plenty of coverage. But if it did get as much as the bombings did I think it would cross the line of "sad, sappy sadness for sad, sappy sadness' sake" that the media so often gets criticized for.
 
#56
macaroni tony said:
OK well I see where you're coming from. The Texas explosion was a sudden and much more destructive singular event than the bombing in Bawstin, but the bombing in Bawstin has much further-reaching implications.

From what I've seen last night on TV and today on the interwebz, West, Texas is getting plenty of coverage. But if it did get as much as the bombings did I think it would cross the line of "sad, sappy sadness for sad, sappy sadness' sake" that the media so often gets criticized for.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. The excessive coverage drives me nuts. So I'm not wanting them to provide more coverage, just wondering why some disasters/tragedies seemingly get more coverage than others. Opining on what the mechanisms are for a society to decide that.
 
#59
It's simple. The news media can't use an accident to sell fear (and as a result, advertising) as well as they can use terrorism. An accident happens, and people want to know about it, and that is the end of it. Even if the news spins it as a systematic problem in the safety at chemical plants, percent-wise, not many people live close enough to chemical plants to make it a real concern.

Terrorist bombings, on the other hand, can provide weeks and weeks of fear mongering which keep people tuned into the news, which keeps advertisers happy. Terrorist bombings can happen anywhere, they aren't limited to a mile radius around a plant, so everyone is at risk.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back