RSS

Wed, Sep 29th 2010, 19:22

Erica Mukherjee, NYU, Silver Contributor (51)

This article is huge eye-opener for what has happened and what is happening Pakistan.

Before reading this article I assumed that the lack of coverage of this enormous humanitarian crisis was for many of the reasons that were outlined in the article: America's donor/disaster fatigue, the slow unfolding of the crisis, and the expense of covering a story in a country with little infrastructure.

There was one reason that I didn't think of, possibly because I'm not cynical enough. Cole suggests that a contributing factor to the lack of coverage is because there is little fuel for partisan bickering on a humanitarian crisis. It is true that political pundits would have a hard time coming up with a party slogan for the Pakistani people's suffering. After all, what politician would think that saying: "let them starve" would help seal their reelection? Since the talking heads would have less to quibble over, the crisis stays out of the corporate news channels.

It is a very sad commentary on the state of US politics and foreign policy if a humanitarian crisis or an unprecedented scale is largely ignored because it can't be spun.

Thu, Sep 30th 2010, 12:31

Sidra Tariq, Institute of Regional Studies, Silver Contributor (27)

Once the process of rehabilitation is started in the ensuing days, the situation is going to get even worse. The lack of coverage by the international media in covering this huge humanitarian crisis speak volumes of the prevelant "News-for-profit" trend, the worldover. The way the news regarding the 33 trapped miners in Chile are being covered by international media is far better and effective in comparison to the flood coverage in Pakistan, which has affected more than 20 million people.

Fri, Oct 1st 2010, 00:43

Member deleted

I definitely agree with the comments so far. The U.S. media appears to have a very short attention span with global affairs- if something does not appear to directly affect some aspect of this country's national security/interest, then the media believes it is not worth following. This perspective, however, contradicts President Obama's sentiment mentioned in the article: Pakistan is a key element to the United States' security by continuing to be a stronghold for Al-Qaeda.

I fear that Al-Qaeda's presence in Pakistan will remain strong if the world does not respond to this crisis faster. Poverty, hunger, lack of adequate shelter, limited access to medicine, and other aspects of human suffering only heighten the possibility of a terrorist group gaining more followers when Pakistan and the rest of the world fail to provide adequate humanitarian aid. Defeating terrorists does not only have to involve military campaigns and violence- defeat can also come from providing much needed assistance to a suffering population.

Mon, Jan 16th 2012, 11:26

Talha Bin Tariq, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan, Gold Contributor (101)

I also definitely agree with the comments .. But just wondering that how come Pakistan is crucial to america's security ..
Whereas the floods in Pakistan concerns media had really created a hyped over it .. though it was almost all true per not every word said by them was 100% true .. Therefore,if media have not taken such a harsh step and created this much hype .. Then this much help and aid would also not have been reached to the needy and affected ones .. Media sometimes played very positive role in such scenarios and issues.

Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq