Friday, August 20, 2010

Was Lincoln's birth a story worth covering in 1809?

The uproar a few weeks back over the Lockerbie bomber's release caught me a bit off guard. After all, when he was released, many - including most victims' families - were outraged. Yet the outrage found no traction in the media. A few took notice, but seemed to suggest it was all about compassion, and folks needed to get a grip.

Then, a few weeks ago, all hell broke loose. Now we are talking about it for weeks on end. Why? Don't know. A few things have happened of course. First, the bomber who was supposed to die didn't do us the service and remains quite alive. Second, though BP was whispered to have had something to do with it, this time BP was whispered to have something to do with it - after the oil leak. Finally, and this is just an observation on my part, Britain is now in the hands of a less progressive PM.

Do any of these things matter? Are they why there was suddenly an explosion of indignation over something that barely rated a blip on the media screen a year ago? Again, I can only guess. But something has made it a story now versus a quickly forgotten one then. It all goes to show us that, whether biased and agenda driven or not, the media's decisions on what is and isn't important seem to be based on things other than what really is and isn't important.

1 comment:

  1. That or they believe what really is and isn't important is contextual/circumstantial in the first place. Granted, it's an abhorrent worldview, that things have no value in themselves; but it still gives them intellectual ground for disagreeing if we suggest they aren't concerned with what's really important. Different basis for the "really" part.


Let me know your thoughts