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

[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.

SpartanMSU

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.

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

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

CHOASXIII

Joke? (Hopefully)

Isn't that sorta the norm in Africa...? Would be boring news if they just had the same crap on all day, may seem cold, but it's a business, being boring isn't gonna get viewers.Inconsistancy

Droning on and on about the casey anthony trial is pretty damn boring. This "norm" from Africa may be depressing, but definately not boring.

Cause it's not news, this is constantly occurring, and people become desensitized to it.

Because it's a given that it happens there. So when it happens in places it SHOULDN'T........

Several reasons:

- Bad things happening in Africa are not new. If you ask an American to name off the things that first come to mind when they hear the word "Africa" they'll probably respond with "poverty, famine, plagues, drought, corruption, and genocide".

- As far as the Western world is concerned, African lives are pretty worthless. A good conversion scale to use when determining the "news worthiness" of a story is: 1 American = 2 Europeans = 10 Asians = 100 Pacific Islanders/Indians = 1000 Arabs = 100,000 Africans. Also, 1 child = 10 adults.

- News shows (ESPECIALLY 24/7 news networks) are not in the business of giving you actual news. They give you "entertaimenews". Much of it is hype sensationalism. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in particular also focus on turning news into gossip (seriously, compare a celebrity gossip show to one of the news networks; oftentimes the only difference is that one focuses on hollywood celebrities and the other focuses on politicians).

For the record though, if you want good international news (ie, straight to the point and serious, no bull****) then look into BBC world news, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera English.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[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

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was awesome.

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

Hitler was better than Stalin.

The news doesn't cover genocides and disease outbreaks in Africa because genocides and disease outbreaks in Africa aren't news.

Because, much as I hate to say it, Africa isn't that important as far as the US is concerned. Or rather, we don't have much reason to care what goes on there, besides perhaps humanitarian concerns. African countries are not significant trading partners with us, nor are they significant militarily.chessmaster1989

Yes. There is no real incentive to help Africa. That Continent has had problems for a while ever since slave trades and diamonds.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[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

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was awesome.

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

Because it's doesn't directly effect anyone who watches those news.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was awesome.

SpartanMSU

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

Hitler was better than Stalin.

My guess: they have nothing that we want.

Beacuse nobody cares about what is happening there.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was awesome.

SpartanMSU

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

Hitler was better than Stalin.

True. But since we didn't have the recourses to go to war with all three countries, you have to prioritize. Seriously. Maybe Hussein did use chemical weapons, but the fact remains that the janjaweed have killed many more, and the Taliban have committed genocide as well against Hazaras and generally oppressed the population. Besides, it is likely that many of Hussein's sctions have been elaborated in order to gain a cassus belli on Iraq. Not saying that Hussein was not guilty of attrocities, it's just that he was the lesser of three evils so to speak. Many Iraqis today say that things are much worse after the American invasion than under Saddam.

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...at least someone still covers the story...including them:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/21/africa.famine.voices/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/20/un-parts-somalia-suffering-from-famine/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43841708/ns/nightly_news/

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084242,00.html

:roll:

The answer is fairly simple:

No Oil.

Because its us, one of the industrial superpowers that can be held accountable for why Africa is in that state in the first place.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Better than the Taliban and the Janjaweed.

Tokugawa77

Hitler was better than Stalin.

True. But since we didn't have the recourses to go to war with all three countries, you have to prioritize. Seriously. Maybe Hussein did use chemical weapons, but the fact remains that the janjaweed have killed many more, and the Taliban have committed genocide as well against Hazaras and generally oppressed the population. Besides, it is likely that many of Hussein's sctions have been elaborated in order to gain a cassus belli on Iraq. Not saying that Hussein was not guilty of attrocities, it's just that he was the lesser of three evils so to speak. Many Iraqis today say that things are much worse after the American invasion than under Saddam.

Germans would have also said the same thiing, since Jews weren't the majority...

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

That's their fault for having children they couldn't afford to feed in the first place.

No one cares? I don't. Not to say I don't empathize with the people, because I do, and I hope they (in general) can be prosperous one day, but honestly, what the **** can you do? It's money down the drain after a certain point. What exactly do they contribute to the world that my money that I EARNED has to be taken from me at gun point from the government to be handed over to charities or directly to the dictators in Africa?

Because there is really nothing we can do about it anymore. We've tried in the past, the aid doesn't get to where it is needed or it is used in some negative way.

People say we should help. We already send billions a year in aid, but it doesn't even dent that continents problems. Nothing short of a full scale military invasion and direct control can fix Africa now.

[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.

Tangmashi

That's their fault for having children they couldn't afford to feed in the first place.

:roll: This is painful to read.. Do you even understand how these countries survive? Through things like agriculture, where families MUST have many children to ensure they can survive agriculture.. This has been a practice used historically in every culture heavy on agriculture.

Because there is really nothing we can do about it anymore. We've tried in the past, the aid doesn't get to where it is needed or it is used in some negative way.

People say we should help. We already send billions a year in aid, but it doesn't even dent that continents problems. Nothing short of a full scale military invasion and direct control can fix Africa now.

Wasdie

This just isn't true what so ever. Both Rwanda and Darfur didn't have any of the major powers even attempt to send aid.. The fact of the matter is this, Africa is of little political or economic importance.. The only reason why Libya was even directly done is because its impact on the oil market.. Africa is no more unstable than many places in the Middle East.. If we used your logic we wouldn't be in Afghanistan right now because much of our aid going there has directly funded the Taliban due to corruption.. We are there because of its economic and political importance..

[QUOTE="Tangmashi"]

[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.

sSubZerOo

That's their fault for having children they couldn't afford to feed in the first place.

:roll: This is painful to read.. Do you even understand how these countries survive? Through things like agriculture, where families MUST have many children to ensure they can survive agriculture.. This has been a practice used historically in every culture heavy on agriculture.

We can´t do anything about it.