165 women raped and then most of them burned to death. Why is that not news?

Different threshold seems to apply to different regions. For Africa, the numbers would need to be in the 100,000s before it's news.
Below is the header from RTEs website. There's a section for the Middle East and World. The stories in the World section are mostly US, Europe and the Middle East. It is mentioned in the Guardian, they do carry some coverage of the conflict in the Africa section.

No outraged TDs calling for sanctions or protesting.

After watching ITVs coverage of the Caraboa Cup, the ITV news was on. I didn't really pay attention, but most of the bulletin seemed to be about a TV chef and allegations of inappropriate behaviour. Journalism is dead I think.

 
The simple answer is contained in your final two sentences. There are parts of the world where life seems cheap and we just shrug our shoulders when we hear of yet another slaughter. (I've read about what's known as The Hierarchy of Death - as old school newspapermen would describe it.)

But it's probably much more complex. We tend to relate to some tragedies more than others because they somehow resonate with our own immediate experience, culture, community etc.

For example, I've just watched a documentary on Australian TV about the young women from Melbourne who died after drinking dodgy cocktails laced with methanol while backpacking somewhere in Asia. I've no doubt this happens to the locals all the time but it's not newsworthy to us. (My own daughters did the Thailand/India/Vietnam thing during college - therefore it strikes a chord and you thank Christ you didn't receive the phone call these poor parents got.)

Palestine/Gaza is the big thing right now in terms of news and performative outrage - most especially in this country. I've friends and acquaintances who spend a lot of time on social media and in WhatsApp groups railing about Israel, calling for boycotts and trying to rally people to attend weekly flag-waving events etc. Some of them seem overly consumed by this one issue to the point of displaying extreme anger with anyone who dares question any aspect of their narrative.

But there are few if any marches or protests about, for example, the way women are being treated in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. It's probably seen as a lost cause anyway but more likely the reason is that the enemy can't be personalized and demonized in the way the Gaza/Israel players can. (Plus the PLO flag is kinda cool and they can wear those trendy scarves to show just how much they really CARE.)
 
Last edited:
And when you point out that my holding the views they hold, and by their selective moral outrage it shows that they are racist, they get even more upset.
 
Purple said:
Most people think Israel has the right to exist. That's what a Zionist is.
Click to expand...
Over-simplification, this is what defines zionists


Most people in the world don't support that apart from a lot of Jews, Christian zionists, fascists and Islamophobes.
 
jimmij said:
Over-simplification, this is what defines zionists
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

From the Oxford English Dictionary;
Zionist; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
 
Last edited:
We may not agree with how the Isreal territory was established but at this stage it needs to be accepted. Just like the carving out of the 6 counties.
 
JoeRoberts said:
Just like the carving out of the 6 counties.
Click to expand...
The six counties wasn't accepted by Ireland until the Catholics there got a fair deal. It was rightfully opposed before then just like Apartheid South Africa was and Israel should be. You cannot have a state that treats people of one religion/ethnicity better than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register