Originally Posted by
Barry Shnikov
There is more than 'apathy' as an alternative response to the Haringey hysteria, DT.
I posted about drama because I'm seeking to make some sort of sense of this prevalent attitude these days of all piling in and shrieking with outrage about something that the newspapers and media outlets whip up into a hurricane.
Maddy thingy last year: one of the results of that, perversely, was the outrage perpetrated on little Shannon Matthews. Her mother looked at the - I'm sorry, I can't find a synonym - hysteria over the Portuguese kidnap and saw the newspapers offering £10,000s rewards, and thought - "hmm. How can I get my hands on some of that money?" My firm opinion is that if Maddy hadn't disappeared, or if the newspapers hadn't turned it into World War 3, Shannon Matthews would still be sleeping in her house with her mum, stepfather and siblings. (I know, it's debatable whether that is a good thing at all, but that's another argument.) Then we have the Ross/Brand thing; now it's Baby P; next month it'll be some new thing that the news media inflates from zero to 70 in 3.5 column inches in order to sell advertising.
Why is it that people are such sheep, or to put it another way incapable of taking a deep breath and saying 'Well, I wonder what the other side of the story is?
Is it apathetic not to become emotional about the death of a toddler in Haringey, and if so is it more apathetic than not being equally emotional about the suffering of children branded as witches and killed in Nigeria, or born with AIDS in South Africa, or killed by off-duty policemen in South America, or married to old men in Pakistan and Somalia, or genitally mutilated in sub-saharan African countries?
Bookmarks