Part II: "Tragic" news story coverage levels and resource allocation

[El Diablo]

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.

[garcia1000]

I think what this needs is a catchy name, so I looked it up and it's called scope neglect:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/0...insensiti.html

Scope is something that normal people find very difficult to conceptualize, because brains don't work on a linear scale - 100,000 apples is not ten times as much as 10,000 apples if you visualize it in your brain.

For people that are aware of this bias, it's easy to be accused of insensitivity from normal people. You'd think, "What's this news coverage, it's just one person out of millions!" At the same time Jane Doe says, "Look at him cry! You are heartless! My panty tightens!"

So um... just be aware of that.

Edit: Here are some quotes so that you are tempted to click on my (very good) link:

[ QUOTE ]
"I am deeply moved if I see one man suffering and would risk my life for him. Then I talk impersonally about the possible pulverization of our big cities, with a hundred million dead. I am unable to multiply one man's suffering by a hundred million."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
An alternative hypothesis is "purchase of moral satisfaction". People spend enough money to create a warm glow in themselves, a sense of having done their duty. The level of spending needed to purchase a warm glow depends on personality and financial situation, but it certainly has nothing to do with the number of birds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jackflashdrive]

Similar behavior:

- Charasmatic mega-fauna (cute animals) receive the lion's share (so to speak) of "save-the-x" donations, even though a number of other "uglier" species are more threatened or are of much more critical importance.

- Many people spend vast sums to keep themselves and/or their aging parents alive for a few extra (often agonizing) months, despite the fact the money used to draw out a single life in this way could dramatically improve the lives of thousands and thousands of people for generations (e.g., putting a well in an african village).

- People who do not generally condone mistreatment and gratuitous suffering of animals will nevertheless support such activities by purchasing meat that is the product of life-long cost-mandated animal suffering.

I'm sure we could all list much more.

The upshot is that the CNN phenomenon you identify reflects the general human tendency to act 'ethically' on the basis of relations. These relations are influenced by many things that should perhaps have no place in ethics, including similarity, familiarity, and convenience. Despite the manifest ethical/logical shortcomings, our tendencies are probably better than nothing.

[suzzer99]

What I can't stand is when CNN goes out of their way to put the horrific details of some random crime right in the headline. IE - "Man Buries Puppy Alive". Yes they really did that one. Or all kinds of horrific things when some cute kid gets abducted. I go out of my way to avoid reading details on those things, because they haunt me forever. I get in these gloomy moods where they start popping into my memory. It sucks.

[burningyen]

Semi-tangent: I think all the major news organizations are struggling with how to get people to wake up to what's going on in Iraq. They recognize that it's the biggest story out there, but viewers are tuning out and the war is slowly killing the news divisions' bottom lines, not to mention their employees. Given the pressure they're under, I would imagine that a human interest story like that boy's would seem like just the thing to draw viewers back to the war and justify all the money being spent on covering it.

That article brought home to me how imperfect and money-driven the process of gathering and presenting the news really is.

[MicroBob]

It is definitely imperfect and money-driven, but that doesn't mean they can't do it better and maintain some attempt at objectivity about it without being all ratings-driven-all-the-time.

I'm kind of fed up with all of them and think it's pretty pathetic the way they go about things.

But it's easy to complain and it's also easy to constantly say, "it's getting worse now then it ever was before" when that probably isn't truly the case.

[secretprankster]

Wow, that kid looks exactly like the guy in The Rock who got trapped at the beginning.

[secretprankster]

There are a lot of similarities between this and the Mrs. Vig cancer donations.

[DonKaleone]

I apologize in advance that I, as a lurker, don't post a really contributing remark, but while reading this thread I couldn't help but thinking of Kane's line from Command & Conquer:

If you kill one, it is a tragedy
If you kill ten million, it is a statistic

[fredericksburg]

"A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic."
Joseph Stalin

I wonder where they got that line from?