From 4/21/13

The president called the events in Boston a tragedy. I am not sure this is the best term to describe a terror attack but I will adopt this term for now. Since president Obama came to power, this country has had an unusual number of “tragedies” of all kinds. This is not to blame him in any way. It is just a factual observation.

Over 8 years of Bush’s presidency we had fewer such events, albeit each was bigger. The “ranking” of the tragedies under Bush was clear, obvious, and justified. The big one, of course, was 9/11. It changed the country; it changed the world. It was huge and it got massive attention, media time, legislative time, the lot. There cannot be any argument or question about it.

The second big one was Katrina, which was again big, deserved a lot of attention, and got it. It was a natural disaster as opposed to man-made (although human negligence contributed) and it got deservedly lots of attention.

Finally there was the mass killing at UV. It, too, got a lot of attention but only for a short while—a day or so. Again, proportionately correct. There was the DC sniper attacks: they too were justified in the limited attention that they commanded.

It seems to me that in the last 4 years or so, the “rankings” of the tragedies and the attention they get has become skewed and I partially attribute that to the president and his amazing power to spin events to serve his own needs, helped by a submissive media.

Take, for example, the three mass-murder events (Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown)—all got huge amounts of presidential attention, media attention, and legislative attention, well above what they deserved if you put them in context.

Then we had the oil spill. The amount of attention that it got was just phenomenal. The fact that as predicted by very few sane (and courageous people) at the time, the effects of it were blown out of proportion, that does not matter. Everyone remembers the few pictures of oily birds and dying fish. But does ANYONE remember that 11 people died in the explosion that triggered the spill?

Now we have Boston. For 5 days and counting we’ve had saturation coverage, 24 hours a day, on all news networks on the events in Boston. I hate to say this but that event resulted only in FOUR deaths.
At exactly the same time, a huge explosion in Texas killed about FOURTEEN people and got one, one hundredth of the attention in the media, if that.

Why is that? I understand that one-on-one, a terror event justifies more attention than an industrial accident but should it be 100 times more when the number of deaths involved is a FRACTION of those who died in the industrial event? Is it the terror element or is it maybe that the blood of the people in Boston is “bluer” than the blood of the people in West Texas?

And if it is the terror ingredient that matters, what happened to the 13 people who died in a terror attack on November 5, 2009, on mainland U.S. by a Muslim shouting “Allah hu akbar,” and who was later found to have had extensive contacts with the head of AQAP, Anwar al-Awlaki? Why did that attack garner so little attention? Is it because again it was in Texas (Fort Hood), or is it because this administration classifies it, outrageously, as a “work violence” incident?

Why does the murder trial of one Travis Alexander by his girlfriend Jodi Arias attract HUNDREDS of hours of TV coverage and miles of written media coverage, including one network, HLN, wholly dedicated to it, but the murder trial of 8 newborn babies and one woman by Dr. Kermit Gosnell gets close to ZERO attention in the media? Who makes these judgments?

Who RANKS human tragedy and based on what?

Hearing the media over the last few days, I just cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that this media is irresponsible, malleable, ignorant, and negligent.