this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
312 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22081 readers
209 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm glad this article exists; this has been bothering me. Specifically, I'm bothered that, while aljazeera featured the stories about the boat of refugees as and after it was happening, I haven't seen it crop up in U.S. news at all. One of the deadliest disasters in the Mediterranean, and... crickets.
Then a submersible with a handful of white rich lads gets lost and it's all over the papers and all anyone can talk about.
To be fair, part of this is the fact that the submersible story has a lot of wild and novel details to it, plus the novel "oh god imagine being trapped in a submarine" fear factor, that make it great for getting attention and clicks, but nevertheless.
The other part of it is that people see "poor, brown refugees drowned at sea in the Mediterranean, once again" and feel completely disconnected from that and glaze over. The refugees don't get the same automatic "what would that feel like if it were me" empathizing, and the situation doesn't get the same scrutiny of rescue details and chances and what exactly went wrong that resulted in hundreds and hundreds of innocent people drowning at sea.
And they were in a BOAT. They knew where the boat was. The boat was reachable. They just let them die.
It's true that we're talking about different countries and different organizations, but this is a recurring pattern. Refugees are being systematically and repeatedly allowed to drown when they are very near to people who could help them. Other people get prioritized and rescued like they're kings.
It is a policy decision. And sadly, it is a pretty popular one. Rescuing these people would mean that the rescuing country needs to grant them asylum. Doing so would incentivize more refugees to choose this dangerous path as it would be a passage to Europe.
This is one of the reasons why the far right political parties in Italy are so successful. They promise Italians that they would stop this type of immigration.
You are right. The social situation with migrants ( mostly MENA ) is so bad that people is infuriating with far-right cause the number of migrants entering by sea is higher than previous government. The people read english and starting to blame european unions and mostly american government to force us to accept migrants cause their ideology. They see far-right government as a sort of a puppet of foreign interest. They say: why you send weapons to ukraine when we have an actual invasion and you help them? I understand that americans have different views, european point of view is starting to become really really different.
This completely misses some important points. First, most people don't value human life infinitely other than maybe their own and close family. We don't want anyone to die, but we don't want to completely change our country and culture either. We don't want to starve to pay for the entire world to be saved, and most of our interventions are controversial to say the least.
You haven't elucidated all points so I might be wrong here. Unless you think people should not as a community be able to have any rules (like HOAs or no homeless camps etc) then democracy has come out that extremely few people want to take on what seems like an infinite population that would like to come to the US and Europe and be taken care of by those governments. So why would democratic governments spend lots of money helping people illegally get here?
Remember - the US and EU have been gutting social programs for citizens already here for decades, at least partially due to costs and an inability to raise taxes enough to cover them. I can argue that's a problem all it's own, and I don't like it, but there is currently no capacity for migrants. I know very few people who would want to increase their taxes the substantial amount that would be needed to cover a large program for likely millions of migrants.
We can make moral arguments here but not everyone has the same morals. And if you set democracy aside, I somehow doubt that is a trade people want to make.I also doubt a non democracy is going to do better for migrants.
Then people will say we should fix the problem at the other side. How? Did you see the recent attempts at nation building? Do you want a western power to dictate to people how to run their countries? If we don't do that (and even assuming we could somehow get them to be a US 2.0 or whatever) how do we fix up their countries? Presumably what they're currently doing isn't working hence the migration. I am sure we've tried asking nicely to not send migrants, to fix their countries, to get a better economy and whatever.
while I certainly think the affluency of the victims is a factor it would be disingenuous to claim this is ALL it is.
For any regular occurrence, at some point apathy sets in. Car accidents are just not interesting to report after the hundreth time. If there were a dozen lost subs near the Titanic every year, I'm sure the story would lose it's luster too.
There's also the aspect that refugees are an ongoing and much more complex issue. You can't just save one ship of refugees. There will be another one in short order. And if you do save them all the question is what do you do with them? At the very least that'll cost you money. At worst it'll cost you political power. Are you going to realize what these people have gone through to get them to a point where they are willingly face these risks? Realizing that maybe something should be done about that is even costlier. And depending on the political landscape in your country most will just consider this "a self solving problem" anyway.
This is not to excuse what we're seeing. But we can't pretend that the stories should be covered the same. They aren't the same. One is much easier to cover than the other.
I see your point but just for the sake of discussion, try and change "refugees" with "people".
You should notice how all the other considerations simply are not worth the electricity used to transmit them on your screen.
I agree with that. As I already said, what I wrote was not supposed to be an excuse but an explanation.
For better or for worse, news outlets care about engagement. "50th boat full of migrants lost this year" won't get many clicks. "Billionaires in trouble under the sea" will. If you think these type of stories are under-reported, feel free to start your own blog or discussion forum.