The Gnostic Agnostic; A Darius Arash Kamali Blog

Why is it that we accept the routine and normalized practice among the ‘mainstream media’ (still searching for a better term) of dolling out coverage of like events through a groupist prism? Easy case in point from the news of recent days: Compare the overwhelming, continuous, almost round the clock coverage of the mining accident involving a dozed or fewer trapped minors in the Western United States with the, comparatively scant coverage by the same press sources of a much larger (affecting well over one hundred minors) tragedy unfolding in China.

Now the usual reason given for this is that The ‘American media’, ie; CNN are there to primarily cover ‘American news.’  And the Chinese Media will cover primarily the ‘Chinese news’ etc.  This retort is almost invariably accepted my most of us as a valid explanation and justification.  But, of course, this is exactly the problem.  If we indeed live in a global community, and by that I mean not just one in which large multinational corporations can take advantage of varying economic conditions and regulatory laws in order to get around local ones created by their own communities; but rather, a globalized moral universe where the inherent  worth of each individual is considered, all else being equal, to be equivalent to that of any other, then the paradox of nation state oriented media becomes clear.  It could be argued, of course, that the consumers of the respective news outlets are more interested in news of their own communities and so the media is simply responding to that demand.  Now there is some merit to this argument if the community in question is small  enough that they may actually personally know the mine accident victims.  It is perfectly legitimate, natural  and non-groupist to be more concerned about those you personally know than strangers you have never met.  However, when we are talking about broader national and international level coverage, then the philosophy ought to be to expect that a Californian who does not know any of the minors either in China or in Utah should be equally concerned with the fate of both groups.  That is unless that Californian is a ‘groupist’ taught to value the lives of some strangers over others simply because of the entirely arbitrary and random happenstance that one group is a member of their nation state (an artificially defined, and ultimately entirely made up designation) over the lives of the strangers that happen to fall outside of that group.  This type of groupism, is an erroneous and pernicious error of moral reasoning. This, in fact, is precisely what makes racism so reprehensible.  Racism, sexism, ageism, nationalism, ethnocentrism etc, are morally wrong precisely because they are specific variations of ‘groupism.’ And in so far as they are recognized as wrong and harmful, institutions such as the media ought to do their best not to pander to them. 

I wonder if this will finally end the absurd claims of the even more absurd ‘Holocaust Deniers’? Probably not, these people are usually not suceptible to reason. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6956691.stm

It is a a nearly unchallenged assumption of nation states that the loyalty of there citizenry must be to those nations and even to those states rather than to any politically, ideologically or philosophically defined groeup party or organization. This notion has it exactly backwards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6107360.stm

Defenition