News Media and the Coverage of Darfur

765 Words Jan 11th, 2018 3 Pages
And why shouldn't it be? The articles and television news coverage of celebrities is going to sell a lot more magazines and draw in a lot more viewers than something depressing and/or hard to understand like a genocide. Let's face it, when people come home from a long, hard day at work, they want to be entertained, not forced to think of the bad things happening in the world. Plus, thanks to a sub-par educational system in the United States that "teaches to the test" and lets important subjects such as geography and social sciences fall by the wayside, many people don't even know where these places are that are experiencing humanitarian crises. They can't be expected to be interested in places of which they have never heard. This, at least, is the common perception among the media today. In 2005, the collective news media channels of this country ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson and his trial for alleged child sexual abuse than they did regarding the genocide going on in Darfur. In fact, MTVu, which is the university station for MTV, did a more thorough job of covering Darfur than any of the major media outlets in the United States. Further, while the news media in other countries, most notably the BBC in Great Britain, do a generally good job of covering important world events (proving it can be done), the news media in the United States tends to…
Open Document