Yeah 5 dead from a shooting at an American school is local news. At an Australian school it's international news.

Now now, they are human, just not humane.

They are also psychopaths.

My wife, after I inform her Elizabeth II died :

"What did she die of?"

Me, straight faced :

"of being ~~98~~ 96 fuckin' years old"

Actually?

It threw me off too. They're saying dogs tend to bite people. It's not really a story. Now if someone bit a dog, there might be something to talk about.

i agree different cancers have different statistics, but the most common cancer would be skin cancer, BCC , 2nd would be SCC and then melanoma.

That reminds me, there's this anti-capitalist, anti-war children's film by Satyajit Ray called Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne. In it, there's a song that says that the king is sad and afraid since he has so much money. He tries to cope by punishing others, but it never makes him happy. The only solution offered was to let go of all his riches, and that finally made him happy.

It was for children, so I understand why sadness was used instead of fear. But they do need to be afraid.

As an aside, I think that movie had a decent impact in the communist revolution that happened in my state in the 70-80s. Ray has made some of the greatest movies in the history of cinema, but his children's films still hold a dear place in the hearts of many generations of Bengalis.

violence on rich, white is often in the news blasted more than someone who is a minority

Not an american but i would think that not many rich people actually get murdered, unfortunately.

Would you say that out loud around other people?

Politically you are probably right. New York Times? A business that likely wishes to sell more subscriptions.

I feel like hearing more kids dying with ass cancer stories and heart disease deaths and people dying from preventable diseases stories would probably shift people away from focusing just on guns and homicide and maybe actually cause people to care about science and solving those other things.

Not that those are good to not focus on, just that there's already an ongoing anti vs pro gun conversation going and at least if we talk about something else that's proportional causing deaths... well, I doubt there are many "pro-cancer" people out there (but I know it's non-zero).

I guess I just want some positive momentum on something at this point.

True, but/and let’s consider something like a more conservative outlet (relative to NYT) in 2023. Who’s president? What issues are getting talked up pre-election? I’m guessing we’ll see something like drugs and homicide taking a massive chunk of the news relative to what the NYT reported. Even regional news will differ — ever turn on the daytime news in Las Vegas? It’s all car chases and interviews with shooting witnesses. You’d think nothing else happened in the world. Just an interesting experiment.

In all fairness, the unusual sells a lot better than the usual as news, so it makes sense that newsmedia goes for the former rather than the latter - any newspaper that reports based on prevalence and ignores the shock-effect of an event simply doesn't get read and goes bankrupt.

So in this specifically, as I see it the problem isn't that the newsmedia choses to report the unusual but that very few people have been taught to beware of one's natural falacy of confusing exposure (how much something is talked about) with actual impact - you can very visibly see it in how people react to governments implementing authoritarian anti-Terrorism measures, were the people who confuse exposure with impact actually support very authoritarian measures to supposedly combat Terrorism whilst the people who do not and instead actual check what's the impact of it tend to be against authoritarian measures because they trade a lot of everybody's Freedom for supposedly combating something which in most countries is has a lower death rate than slipping on a bathtub.

As I see it, were the press fails to uphold Journalistic Integrity is in refraining from reporting on certain unusuals, for example political corruption and certain actions of the ultra-wealthy (whilst choosing to report on other actions of them - see: celebrity culture).

IMHO the dynamic we see in this graphic which is really about impactful vs newsworth is pretty natural, what's not natural is the selectivity in reporting of different but equally newsworthy events.

Having family members die of these things doesn't make people aware heart disease exist? It's only if it's reported in the New York Times reports on it that makes people aware of things?

And no it's not all that flashy when my grandfather dies of a heart attack at the age of 87. That's part of your stats on the common causes of death, right? It's sad for those that knew him, but do you expect a story about an octogenarian dying of a heart attack to make the front page of the NY Times? What would that accomplish more than an obituary stating people should give to a charity in lieu of flowers? Maybe with some more funding to medical research my grandfather could've lived to 88 or 89! But the damn NY Times decided it was more important to report on someone dying in the prime of their life instead of elderly people dying. Those insensitive bastards!