OK, this is a followup to
this thread.
Some interesting points raised about media coverage in terms of information vs. entertainment, what people are interested in, perceptions of media, etc.
I thought of this yesterday when CNN put up a front page story about a young kid who had been doused in gas and set on fire in Iraq. A horrifying and tragic story for sure. And very sad details about his life now, his problems, limited amount of help available, etc. As soon as I read it, though, I thought wow, this kid, among all the tragic stories in this warzone, got really lucky - he'll definitely get some care that few there will ever have access to.
Sure enough, in this
story today, individuals and organizations from around the world are rallying to get this kid any care possible.
OK, that is great. But in terms of resources and how much they can help, I can't help but think of how many other kids in tragic circumstances could be helped if all these donations were instead focused on something geared towards helping a broader group.
I definitely don't begrudge this kid getting assistance. He was a truly tragic and blameless victim in a horrible circumstance.
But the reality of the world is so many kids are facing similar situations, whether it be due to war, famine, disease, etc.
Yet it takes a personal, individual spotlight story on CNN to really grab people.
I am just sorta rambling here, but would be interested in general thoughts on this topic.