Why doesn't the news ever talk about genocides or disease outbreaks in Africa?

I rarely ever hear the media reporting on all the wars and human rights violations in Africa, but I hear ALL the time about stupid celebrity gossip and tabloids. Why do they not talk about it? I mean people are kinda aware of these things going on, all you have to do is look around some to find it.There was this one reporter who filmed and interviewed some child soldiers in Kenya I think and no news network would release his story, Why?

I know the media is biased but come on, these are REAL people who are actually dying and I think more people would help out if they were aware of this kind of stuff. Also I doubt that the vast majority of people don't even know the names of the countries in Africa or have ever even heard of them for that matter, and I think the media wants it to be that way for some reason that I don't know. Does anyone have any idea why?

The internet happened.

There's no more investigative journalism in America. The industry is completely profit-driven, and many news source make money by mouse clicks over what's popular.

Speaking of this topic:

There is a drought in the Horn of Africa that puts many people including half a million children at risk of starvation. This is quite horrible, and much of the media has paid it inadequate attention.

But at least someone still covers the story.

The news is a business. They tell the stories that people want to hear.

Speaking of this topic:

There is a drought in the Horn of Africa that puts many people including half a million children at risk of starvation. This is quite horrible, and much of the media has paid it inadequate attention.

But at least someone still covers the story.

whipassmt

Yeah I heard about tha ta couple hours ago this morning on the news which is one of the reasons why I posted hear. They talked about for only about 10 minutes and then swithced over to an interview about Charlie Sheen and rehab which lasted about 40 minutes. Like SERIOUSLY, what is wrong with people.

I rarely ever hear the media reporting on all the wars and human rights violations in Africa, but I hear ALL the time about stupid celebrity gossip and tabloids. Why do they not talk about it? I mean people are kinda aware of these things going on, all you have to do is look around some to find it.There was this one reporter who filmed and interviewed some child soldiers in Kenya I think and no news network would release his story, Why?

I know the media is biased but come on, these are REAL people who are actually dying and I think more people would help out if they were aware of this kind of stuff. Also I doubt that the vast majority of people don't even know the names of the countries in Africa or have ever even heard of them for that matter, and I think the media wants it to be that way for some reason that I don't know. Does anyone have any idea why?

ShadowMoses900

You will only hear about it if the country has resources worth ripping out, if the country has nothing you will hear nothing.

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

Its been going on so long its no longer news.

Americans are not directly affects.

My statements are cynical, however there is probably more truth in them then you would like to see.

africa is one big buzzkill, and theres not much aside from throwing money at them that other countries can do.

It's not that news doesnt talk about it. I've read tons of stuff on CNN about issues in Rwanda, Darfur, etc. Just click on their world tabs. But it's not front page news on any site at the moment. News sites cater to the population and they dictate what gets highlighted.

NBC World News has covered the draught in Africa for the past couple of days.

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

Tokugawa77

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

whipassmt

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

Aside from brief local news reports.

People don't really care. If it's not this crisis, it's another one.

From drought in Niger, Mali and Mauritania. stopping the spread of Malaria, HIV, AIDS. Civil War #3000 between religious or tribal groups.

Africa is one big **** Storm..

It also - and i'm just gonna say it - does not help that the people are darker skin, i dont think that is the main factor as to why people don't care, but I definently think it is an underlying factor to some degree.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

Tokugawa77

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

I agree with the bolded, it seems like we go to wars for political BS reasons instead of defending our country or helping out other people who are suffereing in other places.

There is NO doubt that Saddam was a brutal man, and I'm glad he's dead. But that wasn't the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and we put Saddam in power to begin with. Just like we trained Bin Laden and taught him the skills he needed to kill people, but at the time he was serving our politicle BS causes and it came back to bite us in the ass.Just goes to show thatthe Government doesn't know what the hell it's doing.

Because it's too far from the civilised world and too uninteresting. The public doesn't care.

I think America gives more aid to Africa than any other country. I'm Canadian, and have a monthly donation setup to World Vision. The unfortunate fact is...Africa has been having problems (starvation, wars, etc) for decades now. It's not exactly news. People already know this. The world does help, but a lot of the blame lies on the heads of many Africans themselves. Yeah, the innocent ones suffer. But you can't keep blaming the West for this.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

Tokugawa77

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

But since the U.S. was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, why couldn't other countries like France and Germany help out in Darfur?

Because it's too far from the civilised world and too uninteresting. The public doesn't care.

Baranga

The civilized world? :|

and you even misspelled it...

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] The problem with sending U.S. troops into Darfur was that they would've been attacked. Other countries could've sent in troops but they didn't either. In fact al Qaeda threatened Jihad against any country that would sent in troops to protect the Darfur people against the janjaweed.

ShadowMoses900

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

I agree with the bolded, it seems like we go to wars for political BS reasons instead of defending our country or helping out other people who are suffereing in other places.

There is NO doubt that Saddam was a brutal man, and I'm glad he's dead. But that wasn't the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and we put Saddam in power to begin with. Just like we trained Bin Laden and taught him the skills he needed to kill people, but at the time he was serving our politicle BS causes and it came back to bite us in the ass.Just goes to show thatthe Government doesn't know what the hell it's doing.

It's all over the news here. Also the horrible drought and starving people due to food shortages. There's a massive action to collect money for Africa going on right now.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Because it's too far from the civilised world and too uninteresting. The public doesn't care.

Blue-Sky

The civilized world? :|

and you even misspelled it...

Speaking of this topic:

There is a drought in the Horn of Africa that puts many people including half a million children at risk of starvation. This is quite horrible, and much of the media has paid it inadequate attention.

But at least someone still covers the story.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] The problem with sending U.S. troops into Darfur was that they would've been attacked. Other countries could've sent in troops but they didn't either. In fact al Qaeda threatened Jihad against any country that would sent in troops to protect the Darfur people against the janjaweed.

whipassmt

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

But since the U.S. was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, why couldn't other countries like France and Germany help out in Darfur?

It is not about which war is going better, it's about which war is right. Iraqis had it hard under hussien, but not nearly as bad as the Afghanis under the taliban or black Sudanese in Darfur. Quite frankly other western countries don't want to get involved in guerilla wars in third world countries after they've seen what the U.S. has gone through.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Speaking of this topic:

There is a drought in the Horn of Africa that puts many people including half a million children at risk of starvation. This is quite horrible, and much of the media has paid it inadequate attention.

But at least someone still covers the story.

markop2003

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

whipassmt

I agree with the bolded, it seems like we go to wars for political BS reasons instead of defending our country or helping out other people who are suffereing in other places.

There is NO doubt that Saddam was a brutal man, and I'm glad he's dead. But that wasn't the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and we put Saddam in power to begin with. Just like we trained Bin Laden and taught him the skills he needed to kill people, but at the time he was serving our politicle BS causes and it came back to bite us in the ass.Just goes to show thatthe Government doesn't know what the hell it's doing.

How could you distinguish the "arab" mujahadeen from the afhgan mujahadeen? it is the same movement... And we did put Saddam in power because we saw Iraq as an anti-soviet buffer state and saw Hussein as an anti-communist leader.

I think America gives more aid to Africa than any other country. I'm Canadian, and have a monthly donation setup to World Vision. The unfortunate fact is...Africa has been having problems (starvation, wars, etc) for decades now. It's not exactly news. People already know this. The world does help, but a lot of the blame lies on the heads of many Africans themselves. Yeah, the innocent ones suffer. But you can't keep blaming the West for this.

Blaze787

America also rips off africa more then any other country.

I wish americans could see the broader picture. America like all western countries exploits countries. 1st world lives because 3rd world supports it.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

whipassmt

I agree with the bolded, it seems like we go to wars for political BS reasons instead of defending our country or helping out other people who are suffereing in other places.

There is NO doubt that Saddam was a brutal man, and I'm glad he's dead. But that wasn't the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and we put Saddam in power to begin with. Just like we trained Bin Laden and taught him the skills he needed to kill people, but at the time he was serving our politicle BS causes and it came back to bite us in the ass.Just goes to show thatthe Government doesn't know what the hell it's doing.

The CIA put Saddam in power because we wanted to use him to go to war against Iran and the Saudies, when he refused we went after him. He was a terrible ruthless dictator, no one denies that, and I'm sure everyone is glad he's dead. But the fact remains that we wasted alot of tax money and alot of people died for a"military intervention", or just a political BS reason that we started in the first place. There would have been NO Iraq war or dictator if the CIA never got involved in the first place.

And the CIA did train bin ladenin the late 70's and early 80's so he could fight against the Soviet Union. That is a fact and the media in the US at the time called Bin Laden a freedom fighter. No joke it REALLY happened and it just proves that the Governmen never has peoples interest at heart. No matter how they try and spin it.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

Tokugawa77

But since the U.S. was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, why couldn't other countries like France and Germany help out in Darfur?

It is not about which war is going better, it's about which war is right. Iraqis had it hard under hussien, but not nearly as bad as the Afghanis under the taliban or black Sudanese in Darfur. Quite frankly other western countries don't want to get involved in guerilla wars in third world countries after they've seen what the U.S. has gone through.

But we didn't fight those wars based on how much the government oppressed it's people. We fought based on who's a threat to our national security. The Taliban sheltered Al Qaida who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam had possible links to terrorism and was thought to have WMD. The Sudanese on the other hand did not pose a threat to us.

At least the U.S. did negotiate a cease-fire between North and South Sudan in 2005.

But since the U.S. was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, why couldn't other countries like France and Germany help out in Darfur?

whipassmt

American news is a poor source of information when it comes to finding out what's going on in the world or even nationally.

For the most part, American news only covers scandals, polls, pundits, opinions and analysts. Any actual news that's aired is done so by accident.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Or perhaps it should be Iraq and Sudan and abandon Afghanistan. Iraq seems to be going better than Afghanistan. But there are innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan who also rely on the U.S. for protection.

But since the U.S. was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, why couldn't other countries like France and Germany help out in Darfur?

whipassmt

It is not about which war is going better, it's about which war is right. Iraqis had it hard under hussien, but not nearly as bad as the Afghanis under the taliban or black Sudanese in Darfur. Quite frankly other western countries don't want to get involved in guerilla wars in third world countries after they've seen what the U.S. has gone through.

But we didn't fight those wars based on how much the government oppressed it's people. We fought based on who's a threat to our national security. The Taliban sheltered Al Qaida who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam had possible links to terrorism and was thought to have WMD. The Sudanese on the other hand did not pose a threat to us.

At least the U.S. did negotiate a cease-fire between North and South Sudan in 2005.

But that's my point- we fight these wars for the wrong reasons. And speaking of Sudan, does anyone know when South Sudan will actually declare independence?

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

whipassmt

I agree with the bolded, it seems like we go to wars for political BS reasons instead of defending our country or helping out other people who are suffereing in other places.

There is NO doubt that Saddam was a brutal man, and I'm glad he's dead. But that wasn't the real reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and we put Saddam in power to begin with. Just like we trained Bin Laden and taught him the skills he needed to kill people, but at the time he was serving our politicle BS causes and it came back to bite us in the ass.Just goes to show thatthe Government doesn't know what the hell it's doing.

Indirectly the West most certainly did.. During his rise to power, the West made it their mission to prop up the Ba'th party (or nationalist party) through out the region simply to try to destroy any kind of socialist/communist movements.. The most extreme case was with Iran.. In which the US and Great Britain.. Through their CIA and MI6 overthrew Mosadeq in 1953 when he nationalized Iran's oil because he felt the western companies were ripping off his people.. They conviently declared he was a communist, and than put into power the corrupt and brutal Shah which lasted for some 26 years.. All that time the US supported and armed him..

Afghans that the US was training were religious zealots though.. The only reason why they were ignored as a threat is simply because communism was the main concern.. The US and really every nation in history has had a questionable track record in whihc they prop up and support people who only turn out to be as bad if not worse as the people they are trying to combat.

But that's my point- we fight these wars for the wrong reasons. And speaking of Sudan, does anyone know when South Sudan will actually declare independence?

Tokugawa77

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

It is not about which war is going better, it's about which war is right. Iraqis had it hard under hussien, but not nearly as bad as the Afghanis under the taliban or black Sudanese in Darfur. Quite frankly other western countries don't want to get involved in guerilla wars in third world countries after they've seen what the U.S. has gone through.

Tokugawa77

But we didn't fight those wars based on how much the government oppressed it's people. We fought based on who's a threat to our national security. The Taliban sheltered Al Qaida who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam had possible links to terrorism and was thought to have WMD. The Sudanese on the other hand did not pose a threat to us.

At least the U.S. did negotiate a cease-fire between North and South Sudan in 2005.

But that's my point- we fight these wars for the wrong reasons. And speaking of Sudan, does anyone know when South Sudan will actually declare independence?

It's a very poor and disturbed continent. How often on the news do you see anything about poverty?CRS98

Its been one of the main stories on the national for the past two weeks...

It does. It's called Al Jazeera.

Generally, I find BBC, CNN, etc. cover Europe, NA, and a bit ofAsia.Al Jazeera covers everyone else plus the ones I mentioned before. They generally give the third world more coverage. I usually check them to see what's really going on in other parts of the world.

Because we have more important things going on in our country than to constantly report from random countries about random topics.

The internet happened.

There's no more investigative journalism in America. The industry is completely profit-driven, and many news source make money by mouse clicks over what's popular.

Blue-Sky

Because it's expected over there. It's become the norm. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Because not one cares, really. When it comes down to it, the American public is much more concerned with it's own "safety" than that of others. Look at Darfur. A journalist there once said that if the American public saw what was happeningin that country therewould be American troops landing there is a week. Still, when the public became aware of the genocide, it was still much more concerned about vengence for 9/11 and this percieved "war on terror". America does not go to war to protect civilians of other countries.

Tokugawa77

Odd, seeing as they are already in a state of Jihad against the U.S. In this instance, we would actually be doing some good and helping people out, which we are doing to some extent in Afghanistan but we have done totally the opposite in Iraq. Screw the Iraq war, it should be Afghanistan and Sudan.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was awesome.