Dec

2

“Are you going to blog about the attacks?” someone asked me the other day.

“Which ones?” I replied.

Of course I knew which attacks my friend was asking about. Like so many people, myself included, she had stayed glued to the TV screen, watching the coverage of some attacks that the giant US networks had chosen to cover.

These attacks happened to occur in Mumbai, and while little is known about much of what actually occurred, and when, and how, what is known is that many, many people lost their lives, many more suffered horrible injuries.

Some of the survivors have been telling their stories in the media now, doing what is called “putting a face” on the tragedy.

During the time that CNN was providing its wall-to-wall “coverage” of the Mumbai attacks, there were, of course, other attacks occurring in other places, attacks about which little maybe known about what actually occurred, or when, and how, but many, many people lost their lives, and many more suffered horrible injuries.

We will not, however, be seeing any of the survivors being interviewed by US media, it is not intended that all such tragedies should receive a face.

While the impact on victims may be 100% objective and neutral, the dead equally dead, the blood of the injured equally red, regardless of where the attack took place, who was the ostensibly intended target, who were the actual victims, the way the news of the actual events is presented, if and when it is presented at all, is very different.

The murder of “civilians,” meaning people who are not employed by or acting on behalf of any entity participating or allegedly participating in a particular conflict, especially if this fact is more or less obvious, as in the case of children, the aged, the infirm, and as a practical matter, especially in some cultures, most women, especially young mothers, is considered by the US mainstream population, for example, excusable and understandable in some cases, as long as those cases involve stated intentions of a beloved entity and object of loyalty and reverence to kill someone else.

Someone who is said to oppose, even resist, the will of that beloved object of reverence and loyalty.

They call it “collateral damage,” and invariably issue statements of regret, and frequently, depending on that media situation, may offer money to the families of the victims.

Occasionally, they may assert that the victim was not really a “civilian,” but in fact someone who opposed or resisted their will, and the viewers nod to each other, just shows you can never tell, and for a while peer a little more suspiciously than usual at certain carefully selected neighbors and co-workers.

“Kinda stupid, doncha think, to complain about a double standard in a war?” was representative of some of the more polite emails I received the last time I dared to touch on this topic (elsewhere).

And I guess he has a point. Maybe the double standard is so accepted that he would not complain about purchasing a videogame player that did not work, or a restaurant meal contaminated with visible debris.

After all, could those businesses not claim that they, too, are in a war for surivival, as more of their counterparts and competitors are being consolidated into larger companies, or simply going out of business?

It is considered the height of poor taste and extremely offensive to point out that the attacks in Mumbai, just like all the other attacks that occurred elsewhere during all those hours of CNN coverage, were basically acts of business, the result of business decisions, taken with the objective of increasing revenue, of making profit, or making more of it.

Such sentiments could, if not limited to a handful of easily dismissible individuals teeming with undesirable characteristics to begin with, jeopardize the acquisition of revenue.

“Attacks” are not free, regardless of how they may be presented on (or ignored by) CNN.

Although effective marketing can lower, even eliminate, some labor costs, the fact is that every time a bomb explodes, someone makes money. Several someones, in fact, just as every time we brush our teeth, that simple act of hygiene reflects the passage of money into a long and convoluted train of pockets - from acquisition of raw materials, through the manufacturing process, down to the pittance paid to the neo-serf who placed the toothbrush - and the toothpaste on the shelves.


Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Blogroll

WP Themes