Facebook, The Media, And How Terrorists Attacks Are Covered

In the days since the Paris terrorists attacks, there has been a significant backlash against the media for its wall-to-wall coverage of the Paris attacks while not covering other recent terrorists attacks.  There has also been a backlash against Facebook for providing its users with a Safety Check alert for the Paris attacks but not the others, and for not providing a profile picture Flag Filter for users to show support for individuals suffering in the other attacks.

Although I totally understand (and agree with) the overarching sentiment that too often major terrorists’ incidents in countries predominately populated by “black or brown people” are not given the press coverage the incidents warrant, I’m going to push back a bit on some of the specifics of these complaints.

The terrorist attacks in Beirut, Lebanon; Kunduz, Afghanistan; even the attacks at Garissa University in Kenya this past April, were very much reported and covered by the major news stations.  I know because I was absolutely aware of these events and could comfortably carry on extensive conversations about the details and implications of each one based on the news coverage.  It’s not as though I traveled to these lands and saw these attacks firsthand, or took the day off from work and launched myself into a terrorists attack research project; I merely listened to and watched the news.  The fact that so many people seem to not have heard about these attacks is more an indictment of the individual than of the media coverage.

If you didn’t know about them, that’s because YOU weren’t paying attention.

I’ll also push back on the equivocation of all the attacks for the following reasons:  A multi-pronged attack in a nation that is not engaged in a civil war, that has had a stable government for several decades, and that has all the resources, tools and military force that France has is more shocking than terrorists attacks in lands that suffer from civil war, have unstable governments, don’t have a robust military force, and are surrounded by similarly unstable nations.  And none of the other attacks that have recently occurred in other nations were as comprehensive in scope as the Paris attacks.

I am not saying that one attack is more horrific than the other, or that the lives of some are less valuable than others.  I am saying that as a US citizen and a “westerner,” we are less accustomed to seeing attacks like this in countries similar to ours; especially nations with vast defensive capabilities.  Thus when attacks like the one in Paris do occur, it (reasonably) carries a greater shock value to us, and thus it is logical that our media will react as it did. 

So I actually believe that the 24 hour breaking news coverage of the Paris attacks is warranted.  On the other hand, though anyone paying attention to the news would’ve known about the other recent attacks, I do think more coverage of these incidents is also warranted and quite necessary if we are going to better understand how to combat similar future attacks no matter where they are plotted. 

That said, Facebook has some ‘splainin to do!

It is totally conceivable that Facebook users have loved ones in Lebanon and in Nigeria and in Afghanistan and in Kenya.  Some are even from those areas.  Why wasn’t there a “Safety Check” alert for each of those nations when they were under siege?  Where are the profile picture Flag Filters for those nations??   What is the bar for such responses by Facebook???  

By not affording each nation suffering similar atrocities the same privileges, Facebook is making a social and indeed a political statement.  This is a power that Facebook is keenly aware of, and is a power that Facebook has used in the past to express its support for specific issues (remember the rainbow profile pictures that followed a particular Supreme Court decision last Summer?).  The company needs to have an internal kum-ba-ya discussion to determine the bar for implementation of its alerts.  Facebook has a global, social and political voice, and by electing to only support France last week despite the myriad recent similar occurrences in other countries, I’d say that it mishandled this power.  Unless they really aren’t concerned about the well-being of folks in “brown” countries…but let’s not be cynical. ;-)

It does seem that in the days following the Paris attacks, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has wised up a bit.  He implemented the “Safety Check” alert for the Yola, Nigeria attacks that took place this week, posting an explanation message to his Facebook page.

All things considered, I think everyone needs to do a better job paying attention. 

To those complaining about the lack of media coverage for all the terrorists’ attacks, please be more consistent in watching the news; most of these occurrences are indeed covered by all the major news stations.  A tree that falls in the forest does indeed make a sound even if you weren’t there to hear it.

To the various media outlets, including the Facebooks of the world, you need to make some serious decisions about what you cover, and the degree to which you cover it, specifically as it pertains to violent conflicts around the world. 

To everyone, we are in a precarious time in the history of our world.  Every day I think about the atrocities going on in these atrocity stricken areas, and I can’t believe we are allowing it to happen in 2015.  So we all need to be concerned how we treat one another, and we need to respect the lives and humanity of those around us…and we really need to be doing much more!

We all need to do a better job of paying attention.

-Maelstrom