Two stories are dominating news coverage this week- the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the surge in the covid pandemic. Do you think one of these is more significant than the other. If so, why?
Both Afghanistan withdrawal of Americans and native supporters is part of a national threat; ditto, pandemic spread due to extremist freedom claims that jeopardize health and living. So they require non-stop reporting till resolved. But there are many other stories of importance that need coverage: congressional hearings on the insurrection; activities aimed at passing the 3.5 trillion dollar aid to middle Americans; progress on the border regular entry ports which need personnel and electronics to screen the 90% of illegal entrants and contraband; activities by civil rights groups on voter rights abusers; monitoring hate group activities; interpretation of higher employment and inflation figures on the economic recovery; improvement on production of rare earth elements within our borders again; Haiti recovery aid from the USA; and of course the steps toward climate control aside from Western wildfires. This is a partial list but items need coverage regularly for good citizenship by We, the People. All are significant.
I agree with the list and I understand that news media must make a choice on which stories they choose to emphasize. As I re-think my question, perhaps it is the superficial coverage that is misleading. As an example, the stories I've read on our withdrawal from Afghanistan offer little historical background and nuance. Context makes a big difference in how we understand events.
I find mainstream media online emphasize the sensational at the expense of equally important ongoing stories, many being existential threats as well. I don't read any of the top newspapers, just a NYTimes online summary every day where I monthly find myself writing a letter do their editors. Mostly it is in response to stellar columnist Nick Kristof, but they all get accepted for publication. If you focus on MSNBC, they are providing more context using Vietnam and Iraq withdrawals for comparison.
Both Afghanistan withdrawal of Americans and native supporters is part of a national threat; ditto, pandemic spread due to extremist freedom claims that jeopardize health and living. So they require non-stop reporting till resolved. But there are many other stories of importance that need coverage: congressional hearings on the insurrection; activities aimed at passing the 3.5 trillion dollar aid to middle Americans; progress on the border regular entry ports which need personnel and electronics to screen the 90% of illegal entrants and contraband; activities by civil rights groups on voter rights abusers; monitoring hate group activities; interpretation of higher employment and inflation figures on the economic recovery; improvement on production of rare earth elements within our borders again; Haiti recovery aid from the USA; and of course the steps toward climate control aside from Western wildfires. This is a partial list but items need coverage regularly for good citizenship by We, the People. All are significant.
I agree with the list and I understand that news media must make a choice on which stories they choose to emphasize. As I re-think my question, perhaps it is the superficial coverage that is misleading. As an example, the stories I've read on our withdrawal from Afghanistan offer little historical background and nuance. Context makes a big difference in how we understand events.
I find mainstream media online emphasize the sensational at the expense of equally important ongoing stories, many being existential threats as well. I don't read any of the top newspapers, just a NYTimes online summary every day where I monthly find myself writing a letter do their editors. Mostly it is in response to stellar columnist Nick Kristof, but they all get accepted for publication. If you focus on MSNBC, they are providing more context using Vietnam and Iraq withdrawals for comparison.