« Threat to sports: corruption or politics? | Main | Human Rights, Aid Effectiveness, and Development: a few findings for debate today, and tomorrow… »
Obama vs. Clinton: distraction from world reality?
By Kaufmann | May 13, 2008
I don’t get it. Late in the evening I watch CNN news. For the past week it has been saturated with interminable reporting on the Obama-Clinton democratic candidate contest. Many pundits have been paraded and asked for opinions on trivia. Obscure (until now) ’superdelegates’ have been interviewed, even if it is to say that hey still ’sit on the fence’.
One could argue that this constant reporting is right now very important to many Americans (which I am not) during this crucial election year. If only it would matter: unless my math is flawed, the contest for the democratic nomination has been effectively over for a week already, ever since the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Yet the cameras keep rolling, obsessed with campaign trivia, on ocassion interspeded by a report on the weird Texas cult.
It could also be argued that there are weeks where there is little else of importance to report. But consider this list:
—Well over 50,000 Burmese citizens are believed dead following last week’s cyclone there, compounded by their own government’s callous unwillingness to let urgent help in. Now more than a million people face famine and disease unless the government fully relents, letting urgently required aid reaching the afflicted, and other countries step up their aid…
—On Monday there was a devastating earthquake in the southwestern province of Sichuan in China, exacting a terrible toll in human lives, which is rapidly climbing to 20,000, many of them children trapped in schools that collapsed. It is the worst earthquake in China in 30 years.
—Earlier in the day there was major terrorism in the tourist center of the city of Jaipur in India, where a set of seven coordinated bombs exploded within a short period of time in the old city, killing over 60 people and injuring many scores more.
—A few days ago the chief of the federal police of Mexico was gunned down in a brazen attack by drug traffickers, in retaliation to the nation-wide crackdown on organized drug criminals by the federal authorities. While the targetted police commissioner, Edgar Millan, was the highest ranking official to be hit, he is far from the only one in the current spree. Several other enforcement officers have been killed throughout the country by the drug mafia in very recent times.
—Also in Latin America, even not as dire: a major volcano eruption has taken place in the south of Chile. The authorities reacted effectively and thousands were rapidly evacuated, apparently with no loss of life, albeit with dislocation and economic pain, including expected loss of livestock.
—And in the Middle East, a hugely relevant development: Lebanon is now again in political turmoil, teetering on the verge of civil strife. About fifty people died in Beirut a few days ago during the takeover of the city by Hezbollah.
Yet media broadcasts in the US continue to focus overwhelmingly on the democratic nomination primaries, even as there is a presumptive nominee already. As a reality check before posting this entry, I just tuned into CNN again. Larry King has just interviewed yet another panel of pundits regarding the democratic primaries, following the lone West Virginia contest for just a few more delegates (which cannot make any difference). And right now on CNN’s (the also respected) Wolf Blitzer is reporting on the number of votes that John Edwards just received in the West Virginia ballot, even though months ago he had abandoned the race…
Of course incentives matter: politicians and media cater to what their constituencies and viewers want to hear and see, and most viewers are mainly interested in what affects them directly. Fair enough. Except that another delegate (or superdelegate) in one direction or another cannot make a material difference at this stage of the democratic contest.
By stark contrast: if there is major strife in Lebanon, implications follow regarding Iran, Syria, the US, and Israel — and more generally for the Middle East. Such possible instability may have political, military, oil and economic effects for the US and its citizens. Americans are also far from immune from important events taking place in the emerging giants, India and China, and within its neighbour to the south, Mexico.
Thus, even if one could possibly ignore for just a minute the humanitarian disaster in Burma, and merely focused parroquially only on safeguarding our own way of life and well being, is it that difficult to see that nowadays what happens far away does affect our backyard?
Topics: Transparency, Voice and Human Rights | |
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Don’t blame American’s for the stupidity and lack of imagination of the people producing the news. The broadcast industry, including news, is struggling with a diminishing audience.
You’ve touched on one of the reasons people aren’t tuning in: We aren’t interested in the blather that’s being broadcast. Many Americans are quite aware of the “butterfly” effect, and are quite attuned to events happening around the world.
Oh, one last thing: To say that the Democratic Party nominee is all but decided is a failure to recognize that the culture within Washington DC is unique in America. It exerts tremendous influence, and there is nothing democratic within the theatre of it. It’s something the news organizations don’t get either, but if you ask Americans who move here, they’ll tell you, ‘it’s not like home.’
June 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I definitely think Americans can, partially, be blamed for the “stupidity and lack of imagination of the people producing the news.” In my opinion, the “diminishing audience” has very little to do with the lack of reporting of important events occurring outside the country such as the examples listed by Daniel Kaufmann. What I typically hear is that people are sick of the “blood and guts” and overall “negative press.” I don’t think the decline is due to an unfulfilled appetite for current events occurring outside the country. If there were an appetite, I’m quite confident that the “people producing the news” would meet this demand. Doing so would only increase ratings and, in turn, increase their “bottom line.” In short, I disagree with you that Americans should not be blamed.