Seems to me that the televised hurricane coverage has taken the place of the televised stories about missing white women. Now that the awful storms are gone, we are still seeing the coverage of the damage. And, we’re seeing it around the clock. Sure, there are hints that there is a bloodletting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we only see little drops of blood.
Of course we needed to see what was happening before the storms made landfall, and of course we wanted to see what damages had been done. We’ve seen both.
Now we need to see what damages have been done in our wars. We should be talking about the disaster that continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are those pictures? Where is that aerial footage? Where are the experts and why aren’t they on our television screens? Why can’t the televised coverage of the wars take the place of the televised coverage of the hurricanes which took the place of the televised coverage of the missing white girls?
Is it because storms and missing women are more interesting than wars, even if the wars involve Americans? Do the TV people, who get all made-up and spray a ton of hairspray on their perfectly coifed locks, understand storms and missing women more than they understand wars? Are wars, in which people are being killed daily, less appealing than people dying in the streets of New Orleans? If agony sells, the television stations are wasting a great opportunity in not doing some filming in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, what the hell? Maybe if the television viewers saw the death and destruction going on in the wars, just as they saw it in New Orleans, they might demand that the government do something about that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment