April 22, 2013
-
Why is the explosion in Texas less newsworthy than the bombing in Boston?
Just a question:
Why is the explosion in Texas less newsworthy than the bombing in Boston?
I mean the explosion in Texas measured on the richter scale and killed 14 people. It destroyed hundreds of structures.
The bombing in Boston was a small little blast and killed 3 people.
Yet people were OBSESSED with the Boston bombing.
And both blasts were a result of human behavior.
Why the obsession with the behavior that kills relatively few and does comparably little damage?
Why does no one demand we get to the bottom of the cause of the blast at the fertilizer plant?
Why is there no "man-hunt" for the perpetrators at the fertilizer plant - which there are?
I am always fascinated by this aspect of human behavior!
Comments (49)
Big city vs. small town.(also population density) International event vs. locals doing their daily job. Access to the media could also play a part. Think about how many media members were in Boston vs. how many were in West, TX?
That is fascinating!
I think they look at the West, Texas town's explosion as a natural cause since it wasn't intentional but just bad luck.
it's odd they have a school so close and a nursing home and also apts. We know that it's explosive from Timothy McVey's explosion in the truck at Oklahoma.
I can't say much cause our own town has a fire arms range right next to a grade school.
My sister got upset cause the school bus dropped grade school kids in front of a sex offender group home here in Texas and she volunteered for them to drop kids off at her house since she's a stay at home mom but she had to make a big deal out of it.
We think someone else will notice things but they don't so it's up to us to ask questions about our world as Joe and Jane Citizen and make sure it's safe for us.
Let's not wait till the next guy says something but let's be proactive.
Yeah, I agree with you! There should have been equal coverage.
People are more interested in terrorism than in negligence.
...even though negligence is far more likely to kill them.
I do agree with you that there is a disparity in the coverage of the two incidents. Practically as soon as there were no more bodies to triage, coverage shifted back to Boston. In my opinion... I think it's the mentality... "Poor dumb bastards... that's what they get for living so close to a fertalizer factory in the first place!" Whereas, the Boston incident was, in no way, the victims' fault.
cause life ain't fair....nor is the news media
Because intention in life matters, and we're interested in things out of the ordinary.
Why don't people care about the bombings in Iraq? At the same time of the Boston bombing, over 40 people died in Iraqi bombings.
Because it doesn't affect our lives and it happens all the time.
Texas is where the dumb, eeeevil rednecks live and Boston is where the wonderful, liberal smart people live.
XtremePsionic said it: "we're interested in things out of the ordinary." On the spectrum of things we are used to seeing, a fire and ensuing explosion of a plant are things we often hear about (even if they don't cause that many deaths). We are also used to (and expect) hearing about bombs killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not used to terroristic bombings in the U.S. in which the perpetrators are still on the loose and able to do more killing. It has nothing to do with big city vs. little city or liberals and conservatives. When the ATF vs. Branch Davidians event occurred very near where the fertilizer plant explosions occurred, there was wall-to-wall news coverage.
valid question. intention?
I'm thinking that the old adage "If it bleeds, it leads" has much to do with this. Before I explain, I will say that in all the coverage I've seen, the West, Tx explosion has always been mentioned after talking about Boston, but yes... the amount of coverage is majorly slanted.
Why Boston over West? Well, West wasn't terrorism. From what I know, if anything, it was mere negligence. Intention plays a pivotal role in the coverage here. Sure, the death rate is higher, and it's more spectacular a deal, but it's also an accident (to the best of my limited knowledge) whereas Boston was an unforeseen, and somewhat unprecedented attack. There's a fear element involved.
The news corps are not here to inform. They're here to make a profit, plain and simple. Something that can scare their customers (us) will keep us watching more attentively than something that has a very low probability of happening again, by comparison.
Am I saying that any of this is "right" ? No. I'm just answering the question, to the extent that I've understood it.
Which brings us to another question... Is it really the news corps that are to blame here, or are they just giving us what we want, which makes us the problem?
A lot of people are asking the same question. I don't know the answer...maybe you should contact some of the news networks and ask them.
It sickens me the way no one seems to care about what happens outside the elitist cities like Boston, New York, and San Francisco. I could care less about those places. They're not the real America. Small towns like West, TX are the real America - good God fearing people who are content living a simple, righteous life. Boston is a town of heathen left wing nut-jobs and sexual deviants.
They hate this country and everything for which it stands.
Because you can come together for a common enemy with terrorism, but you can't do entire news segments and patriotic tributes when someone just fucks up at their job.
I'm heard the management of the plant had violated regulations. Fertilizer is very volatile and they should be prosecuted because in my mind they are culpable. Our church held a prayer service for the terrorist bombing but not for the Texas tragedy. I asked why but got no good answer.
All these answers are so interesting! The different points of view! Thank you all who have commented so far!
I'll admit, it was fascinating to see the speed with which the government used to find the perps of the Boston bombings. I have also noticed how the fertilizer story, took second place. But now that one Boston bomber is dead, and the other is caught, the headlines have somewhat turned to the Tx tragedy even more.
Because a terrorist attack can happen anywhere anytime. A fertilizer plant explosion can only happen at a fertilizer plant.
I think they should be equally important...the lives lost should be equally important...we need to mourn each of them...we should pray for all the families. I think the press likes the stories that are more dramatic...they prefer terrorism over accidents.
I get upset when a lead story on my local news is Justin Bieber's new hair-do...and yet no mention of kids who are starving in our country.
I think bottom line for news agencies is readers/watchers/money...so they report what is most beneficial to their station/paper, etc.
???
Just some thoughts off the top of my pea-brain!
Good question...and good thoughts here!
HUGS!!!
A story's more interesting when there's a bad guy.
Well, Boston was an attack. West was an accident.
Somebody went out with the intent to kill, injure and maim in Boston.
Somebody fucked up (big time actually) by storing way more of some highly volatile nitrate than they were supposed to without federal oversight, in West.
The perps in Boston went on to shoot 2 more people, rob some people and caused a subsequent hot manhunt, after bombing an international event.
In West, it's easy to investigate who's responsible, what exactly they messed up on and hold them responsible for it.
One is a violent crime. One is a negligent crime.
At least I did lump it all together when I stated that it seems like the damn gates of Hell are opening up this week.
The West explosion meant much to me, as I was just in that town last Spring- and I am from Boston. It is also worth noting that one of the speaker's at last Thursday's memorial service for the bombing victims mentioned the tragedy in West and told the audience to pray for the victims there as well. President Obama made clear his willingness to go to West last week, but was supposedly told by the Texas governor that it wasn't necessary. Finally, are you sure you want CNN poking around your town?
What the others already said - terrorism/crime is far more high in importance than just plain ol' negligence.
and also it has nothing to do with big city vs. small towns. If a similar incident happened in Texas, it would have been headline news as well.
Because the media dictates the narrative. For the people close to the explosion, this is newsworthy and more important for them.
It's not as simple as terrorist attack vs accident. Not long ago, people cared about the BP oil spill at the Gulf of Mexico. That was a freak accident from negligence, just like the fertilizer plant explosion in Texas.
There are probably a number of reasons, justifiable or not.
There was constant coverage throughout the night the explosion in West Texas occurred but the following day authorities kept the press at a distance including helicopter coverage of the area. Only today did I see the devastation to the nursing home caused by the blast.
I think it was the day after (could have been 2 days after) the explosion at the plant the police spokesperson in charge said on national TV "We don't need more help".
During his GOP presidential primary run Texas Governor Rick Perry said one of the agencies he would shut down is the EPA, the agency which might have prevented such a disaster if it had the funding to do so. A few years ago Governor Perry threatened to secede from the U.S. over federal government funding (He quietly accepted the funding and used it to balance the Texas budget). Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul has argued Texas doesn't need an EPA or federal help when disasters strike. These stances likely give people in the rest of the country a general feeling that Texas doesn't want our help so it's easy to say, okay you're on your own since that's what you want.
One could ask, why did Boston's Governor welcome the President to speak on behalf of the Nation's support while the Texas Governor told the President it's not necessary? Though there were far more deaths it was the Texas Governor's decision to decline the national attention a presidential visit brings.
Then, as others have already mentioned, while the attack in Boston was quickly assessed to have been an attack deliberately perpetuated resulting in a massive manhunt the tragic explosion in West Texas was almost as quickly assessed as a likely industrial accident and again, if Texas politicians and the Texas Governor at least appear to believe such an explosion is acceptable collateral damage for not having a strong EPA or an EPA at all it creates a feeling among people that, okay you're on your own because you wanted to be. Ron Paul has also spoken against a necessity for FEMA.
I don't know. I'm just offering theories as to why the Texas disaster hasn't received the same or more press.
I postulate that the Boston bombing was a premeditated act of terrorism and this the "news worthiness" is greater than the Texas explosion caused by stupidity and careless behavior (can we say short cut and not following established safety protocols?) Not following the rules is not as news-sexy as terrorists.
Terrorism is more newsworthy than industrial stupidity.
Naturally, here in Texas, the West incident was big news. It's not like they got ignored. Their congressmen visited. They got promised federal aid, donations and help poured in. On every live show I watched, someone said something about being sorry or concerned for the people of West (as on the Sprint Cup stock car race). And like everyone else said, the explosion in West wasn't intentional, at least, from what is known now. It's horrible that so many firefighters and first responders were killed. They were doing their dangerous job and to me, that is more poignant than getting blown up because you were standing around.
One word : Islam
Hey Donkey,
got a new xanga, and I know the answer . . . it's less newsworthy because it wasn't done by so whack job tryig to have nis name on Headline news . . . our .gov can't let a good crisis like in Boston go to waste
But then again which state was won by the Traitor in Chief and which one wasn't
tcwf . . . the new Angry Infidel
Attached to the view from the shard http://www.365tickets.co.uk/the-view-from-the-shard/the-view-from-the-shard bridge tube station, the entry is fast and efficient. Up to level 69 (indoors) and then 72(open air) you can see all across london and beyond. Awesome! safe and relatively easy for children/parents of all ages with plenty of opportunities to take photos. there are interactive telescopes which for a small fee will highlight the key sights as it passes over them in the distance.
negligence
@Donkey_Guy_10 I've been saying the exact same thing to my family, since last week. I live in WI and there has been nothing except media coverage about the Boston explosions. It was terrible what happened. However, it didn't warrant every local channel to preempt daytime and prime time shows last week and to overrun OUR WI local news with the Boston explosions. We could barely hear about what was happening to our local weather floods because they spent so much time on Boston. Also, here in WI, there have been 2 days of Wisconsinites paying tribute to Boston by doing 2 marathon runs, while the media has been hyping up the Boston explosions like they were 9/11, when they're far from 9/11's terrorist attacks.
Possibly because the explosion was a one shot deal.
It happened...but it was over.
The bombers were walking around a few days later...and did in fact re-surface.
It wasn't a matter of "less worthy", so much as possibly recurring.
And if you want THAT attitude...compared to the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, it was barely a blip.
I consider any disaster as "worthy"...so why are you all about body counts?
Very good question. Even I wondered why is the Plant bomb that killed 15 people and injured more people than in Boston, is not mewsworthy. There is such a obsession about the Boston Bombing and the two who caused. But why is the authorities not asking who was the cause of the fertilizer plant fire? Was that a terrorist fire too?
@galadrial - "Body counts"? That seems such an awful way to trivialize human life. But I guess that is what I am really trying to get at... Over 30,000 people in the U.S. die every year in traffic "accidents" that are a direct result of human behavior... Relatively few die from "terrorism"... Is the value of life really that insignificant to so many? We just put a label of "accident" on the behavior and it makes it OK? And if we put a label of "terrorism" on it, then it becomes this big awful thing? Are you suggesting the loss human life is an unimportant measure of these behaviors? If so, what things do you place higher on the scale than human life in measuring these behaviors?
I don't consider what happened in Texas an accident.
Storing over 1200 times the legal limit of a volatile substance, while lying to both the EPA and Homeland Security about it is criminal homicide, and reckless endangerment of human life.
It deserves attention.
I don't trivialize life as you put it...I simply find it amusing how people can be windsocks in their opinions. Small Government when it suits them...that sort of thing.
One was murder, the other was an accident. You might as well ask why there are so many crime shows on tv and so few "woops, someone died" shows. Murder is more interesting, it's all about entertainment and shock value and drama.
Murder sells more ad time at higher prices than industrial accidents. That is all.
Many, many, many, many, many times more people are killed by poor driving or drunk driving than by terrorism, the equivalent of something like 9/11 happening once a month. Do we care equally about both? Nope. Why? Because we're emotional creatures, not rational ones - and easily lead.
@coolmonkey - True.
@Donkey_Guy_10 - Haha, sorry for preaching to the choir, I hadn't read this comment before I made mine.
Our you asking why the media looked at one or another. but the people in
Texas was in the midst of the storm. And the people in Boston was in the midst of the storm.
They both was equal and sadden.
3 children below 3and 5 and two adult female was shot with a ak47 on Monday
@galadrial - Oh! Thank you for your comments! I do not mean to misrepresent what you said. I just think it interesting the way things are judged newsworthy... And to the degree that this is a reflection of what the audience wants to see - this is also interesting.
Interesting comments - all! Thanks!
I think it's getting more press because the bombing was on purpose(terrorism)rather than negligence. Error is way more threatening than intent. It's a tragedy by and no one is saying it isn't. However, America's ongoing fight of terrorism is something that strikes a chord with most Americans which is why it's getting the news. Most of us alive today are old enough to remember 9/11 and remember the violation we all felt when robbed of our safety. We're reminded and demand the matter be taken care of and so it appears that it is. With TX...it could have been avoided, should have been avoided but incompetence won out in the end. You can bet when they rebuild their safety standards are going to be a lot stricter...not that it will mean a lot to the people who died or their families.
Because its more entertaining when there is murderous intent. But yeah, sucks that its taking away attention from the texas explosion.
Where's Texas?