What makes one victim more 'important' than another?
Tracey | 14.09.2001 17:59
The deaths this week are a tragedy and obviously to be mourned. However, at least they will receive the worldwide media attention they deserve and won’t be forgotten. For, in contrast to this, the thousands killed by the US government abroad remain nameless, brushed aside as simply another foreign death in another foreign country, to be instantly forgotten or not even meriting media attention in the first place. A tragedy though this week’s deaths are, they are being given media attention on a scale not seen before, the closest comparison being that of the death of Princess Diana, when the media forced us to forget our lives and concentrate on only one event. The same is currently happening.
A couple of years ago Roy Greenslade wrote an article regarding the deaths connected to the Troubles in N. Ireland, the media coverage of the various deaths, and the scale it formed. Briefly, to achieve maximum media coverage you had to be English and die in Britain; below that came Protestant deaths – receiving some coverage but not as much as the former; the worst off came Catholic deaths in N. Ireland, sometimes receiving no newspaper or TV space whatsoever. He called this a ‘hierarchy of death’, and it appears to be repeating itself currently. American deaths at the hands of a terrorist attack are being afforded media attention open to no one else. And what media! The BBC host a programme entitled “America Under Siege” and ITN, in their own inimitable way, put music to the moment the plane crashes into the World Trade Centre. For them it’s a media event to keep them justifying their roles, to us it’s sick entertainment. And tuning into the radio stations is just as bad, with almost evangelical DJs spurting their moral absurdities against the attacks, little questioning why it took place or why people are prepared to die in such a manner. Very few questions are being asked as to the role the US government has played in enlisting such people to take on these tasks. Back to the DJs, and all they know is that Americans died and Americans are the good guys.
Bush said that this was the first war of the year. I think he’ll find that he’s been beaten to it, with the Israelis surely fighting for top spot for that dubious honour, backed though by Bush. What he meant to say was that this was the first war of the year that directly involved the US. However, as with everything about this event, a war that results in American deaths must be deemed by all to be the first ‘proper’ war, if you like. He argues that democracy came under attack that day. But in a country where the President was elected through fraud, that’s a pretty ironic statement. He talks of justice and freedom. The only justice and freedom that can be derived from this attack is him accepting partial responsibility for it, along with his government and their foreign policies. And real justice will only be achieved when men like him no longer control the world’s destiny.
Tracey
e-mail:
tdavanna@hotmail.com