There is obviously good amount of relevance (of all shades, be it political, regional, communal etc) affecting reporting, and discretion applied that skips certain events, but I want to say something tangential.
To me, it appears that the modern epidemic of equating live TV coverage where reporters blabber inconsequrentialities with an event being in the news is the cause for the feeling that the article espouses. Doesn't a 60 second mention about an event suffice? The larger point is, how does this 'coverage' really help the cause? Surely, reporting a disaster, with brief visuals, will alert the volunteers to do their bit for humanity, but showing private human emotions for days and days is something I never understood. It can't be anything but politically motivated propaganda. It also smacks of commodification of victims for a sort of depraved entertainment value. I often feel that a disaster that suits a tv station's agenda is a relief to them because they don't have to worry about programming and can simply milk it till they get bored.
One could argue, correctly, that when an event is reported only briefly on tv it doesn't remain in people's memory. This is where I favor newspapers to tv news. Although there is still a bias here too - an event being reported on front page, with pics etc, or in the fifth page column 2, or nowhere at all - it is relatively indelible. The cliched Hollywood character that pins newspaper clippings to remember an event sort of corroborates what I am saying.
That said, I must say that I am not a fan of all these award winning gut wrenching pictures of human tragedies because I refuse to believe that the photographer is not manipulating. News via visual media is always less trustworthy to me than news via written word. Atleast with the latter, we can sense the tone, inclinations, sophistry etc which is extremely hard with visual medium. For instance, every documentary looks manipulative to me, so I never value news disseminated via visual medium, except for some events like Hindenberg disaster, Tsunamis etc which can't be described in words.
Its not the death count, type of disaster or sympathy for similar/popular. Its novelty of news.
A disaster that is unique, novel or unexpected will get the attention of news readers.
A terrorist attack in a third world will not get the same attention as a tsunami or mudslide(because the later occur less often) and much less than a new disease that kills a dozen people. There is a subconscious risk-estimating going on "is disaster X relevant/close/threat to me", but the novelty of new information is the key for news coverage and subsequent interest.
An easy way to increase novelty is to add something unique:
instead of 20 people died in X, add their names and their occupations, how they died, in-depth material/interviews - all things that increase engagement and empathy.
A simple news broadcast that searches for scoops and immediate facts is quite dry and non-appealing, like a weather report for most people. People better absorb news in format of something similar to opinion piece/entertainment, regardless of its accuracy/neutrality.
All coverage is building engagement. People relate to the event from more angles. Emotional connections form, sympathy and sense of relatedness. To some it might be a soap opera, but it also relieves their personal fears and problems - in a sort of twisted escapism, like watching disaster movies or horror films.
Power=Reach x Persuasiveness according to Scott Adams, a change from the old Power = Money x Willingness to do evil. By this, reach increases as a function of novelty and existing reach, if we can take fore granted that humans “like” shiny. Ie. the coverage is rational self interest.
To me, it appears that the modern epidemic of equating live TV coverage where reporters blabber inconsequrentialities with an event being in the news is the cause for the feeling that the article espouses. Doesn't a 60 second mention about an event suffice? The larger point is, how does this 'coverage' really help the cause? Surely, reporting a disaster, with brief visuals, will alert the volunteers to do their bit for humanity, but showing private human emotions for days and days is something I never understood. It can't be anything but politically motivated propaganda. It also smacks of commodification of victims for a sort of depraved entertainment value. I often feel that a disaster that suits a tv station's agenda is a relief to them because they don't have to worry about programming and can simply milk it till they get bored.
One could argue, correctly, that when an event is reported only briefly on tv it doesn't remain in people's memory. This is where I favor newspapers to tv news. Although there is still a bias here too - an event being reported on front page, with pics etc, or in the fifth page column 2, or nowhere at all - it is relatively indelible. The cliched Hollywood character that pins newspaper clippings to remember an event sort of corroborates what I am saying.
That said, I must say that I am not a fan of all these award winning gut wrenching pictures of human tragedies because I refuse to believe that the photographer is not manipulating. News via visual media is always less trustworthy to me than news via written word. Atleast with the latter, we can sense the tone, inclinations, sophistry etc which is extremely hard with visual medium. For instance, every documentary looks manipulative to me, so I never value news disseminated via visual medium, except for some events like Hindenberg disaster, Tsunamis etc which can't be described in words.