No one is paying attention to the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
No one is paying attention to the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/no-one-is-paying-attention-to-the-worst-humanitarian-crisis-since-world-war-ii/2017/06/25/70d055f8-5767-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.03046fccc9a4
38 comments
The United States and the United Kingdom are actively participating in the Saudi war against Yemen. They supplied the military hardware (for a tidy profit) and also provide advisors and intelligence personell to "help" the KSA's effort to force its will on Yemen. Africa offers business opportunities for Western companies and some areas play a starring role in strategic destruction aimed at furthering foreign policy goals, e.g. Libya.
In other words the West doesn't care about humanitarian suffering. It only becomes a problem if it threatens "our" interests or if a crisis gets heavy media attention, in which case governments may take a few token actions to show the world that they are "doing something."
In the case of Syria the Western "coalition", by arming and training the jihadists fighting the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad , is actually prolonging the war and people's suffering. Keep in mind that we are arming al-Qaeda in Syria - the same guys who the "war on terror" was supposed to wipe out. This is a fact that can easily be verified using credible sources.
The stuff about human rights and democracy is a PR project that packages up death and destruction and sells it to the citizenry as "humanitarian" or part of a "responsibility to protect". Only a population that has never known war can easily buy into such a blatantly Orwellian "war is peace" fairytale.
The idea of an altruistic empire that spends blood and treasure not to acquire resources or territory but because its heart bleeds for "babies....innocent little babies" is the stuff of comedy. As propaganda, however, it has been very successful. But that is changing as people communicate with others thousands of miles away in the center of the action and peruse sources offering information that does not align with the narratives presented by the Western media.
The American and European media's reporting on Syria is especially appalling. This has been noted by several journalists including respected war correspondent Patrick Cockburn. When the jihadists were defeated in Aleppo late 2016 (and bused to Idlib province with their families and even allowed to take their weapons with them) the media painted a picture of wanton slaughter and summary executions at the hand of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies that simply did not happen. The media relied exclusively on jihadi sympathizer citizen "reporters" and took their words at face value. Not once did a major Western news outlet consider that the people of Aleppo were very happy that the fighting and dying had stopped. And the vast majority stayed in Aleppo and did not the government buses to Idlib. This of course was not reported either as it does not fit the narrative of Assad as a sadistic fiend who takes delight in butchering Syrians. The plight of Christians, Shia Muslims, Druze, Alawites and moderate Sunnis in "rebel" held territory was conveniently skipped over as well.
Yeah that's how much the establishment cares. It is difficult to get ordinary people to see how one-sided and manipulative the conventional narrative is because they are used to lies, distortions and half-truths being passed off as "objective" reality in these regions. They hear that the U.S. and EU are arming and training al-Qaeda and it sounds like 911 truther nonsense to them. That there is a paper and money trail that verifies this is beside the point. A good salesman uses emotion to convince customers to buy, not an earnestly delivered list of facts and specs. Much of the art of persuasion consists of distracting the rational mind and playing with target's emotions.
But he major media outfits are simply not that important to people who came of age after the internet became ubiquitous and those who adapted to the new technology. This does not mean they are all well-informed but it does mean that many are and there is a good chance many more will begin questioning the veracity of conventional narratives.
In other words the West doesn't care about humanitarian suffering. It only becomes a problem if it threatens "our" interests or if a crisis gets heavy media attention, in which case governments may take a few token actions to show the world that they are "doing something."
In the case of Syria the Western "coalition", by arming and training the jihadists fighting the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad , is actually prolonging the war and people's suffering. Keep in mind that we are arming al-Qaeda in Syria - the same guys who the "war on terror" was supposed to wipe out. This is a fact that can easily be verified using credible sources.
The stuff about human rights and democracy is a PR project that packages up death and destruction and sells it to the citizenry as "humanitarian" or part of a "responsibility to protect". Only a population that has never known war can easily buy into such a blatantly Orwellian "war is peace" fairytale.
The idea of an altruistic empire that spends blood and treasure not to acquire resources or territory but because its heart bleeds for "babies....innocent little babies" is the stuff of comedy. As propaganda, however, it has been very successful. But that is changing as people communicate with others thousands of miles away in the center of the action and peruse sources offering information that does not align with the narratives presented by the Western media.
The American and European media's reporting on Syria is especially appalling. This has been noted by several journalists including respected war correspondent Patrick Cockburn. When the jihadists were defeated in Aleppo late 2016 (and bused to Idlib province with their families and even allowed to take their weapons with them) the media painted a picture of wanton slaughter and summary executions at the hand of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies that simply did not happen. The media relied exclusively on jihadi sympathizer citizen "reporters" and took their words at face value. Not once did a major Western news outlet consider that the people of Aleppo were very happy that the fighting and dying had stopped. And the vast majority stayed in Aleppo and did not the government buses to Idlib. This of course was not reported either as it does not fit the narrative of Assad as a sadistic fiend who takes delight in butchering Syrians. The plight of Christians, Shia Muslims, Druze, Alawites and moderate Sunnis in "rebel" held territory was conveniently skipped over as well.
Yeah that's how much the establishment cares. It is difficult to get ordinary people to see how one-sided and manipulative the conventional narrative is because they are used to lies, distortions and half-truths being passed off as "objective" reality in these regions. They hear that the U.S. and EU are arming and training al-Qaeda and it sounds like 911 truther nonsense to them. That there is a paper and money trail that verifies this is beside the point. A good salesman uses emotion to convince customers to buy, not an earnestly delivered list of facts and specs. Much of the art of persuasion consists of distracting the rational mind and playing with target's emotions.
But he major media outfits are simply not that important to people who came of age after the internet became ubiquitous and those who adapted to the new technology. This does not mean they are all well-informed but it does mean that many are and there is a good chance many more will begin questioning the veracity of conventional narratives.
Holy clickbait title Batman.
> hundreds of thousands of children will starve to death
In this case, I wouldn't call it bait because the information doesn't seem less important than the title makes it out to be.
I'd also agree that "no one is paying attention" because I'm a news addict and haven't seen a single headline about this in the last few years.
In this case, I wouldn't call it bait because the information doesn't seem less important than the title makes it out to be.
I'd also agree that "no one is paying attention" because I'm a news addict and haven't seen a single headline about this in the last few years.
I can't speak to the state of your memory, but I've seen headlines on it, and I know of worse humanitarian disasters since WW II. So I do consider it clickbait.
What are some of the disasters since WWII that were worse than 20 million people starving? The only competitor would be Syria.
20 million caught in famine does not mean 20 million dead.
The Great Famine of China in 1959-1961 is 15 million dead according to official statistics, but is generally estimated in the range 20-40 million dead. With many, many more malnourished, hungry and so on.
I gave several others elsewhere in this thread. (Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo.)
North Korea in the latter half of the 1990s is comparable to this one.
The Great Famine of China in 1959-1961 is 15 million dead according to official statistics, but is generally estimated in the range 20-40 million dead. With many, many more malnourished, hungry and so on.
I gave several others elsewhere in this thread. (Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo.)
North Korea in the latter half of the 1990s is comparable to this one.
Vice News covers it regularly
It's not a clickbait title. It's literally the main thrust of the article. “We can’t seem to get anyone’s attention to what’s going on,” says Carolyn Miles, the president and chief executive of Save the Children.
However, the title appeals only to my curiosity about what "the worst Humanitarian crisis since [Godwin's Law]" might refer to. Leaving that out baits me into clicking.
So it's about their inability to do good marketing? That's not about people paying attention, that's just a PR problem.
Title does not match...
Title does not match...
What makes it clickbait?
I have very little basis for what to expect in the article:
- Is this about the media not communicating what's important but rather chasing clicks/ratings?
- Is this about something that is actually wrong that needs to be paid attention to?
- Is this about the over saturation of non-profits and their inability to market well?
I guess I'll have to see for myself.
- Is this about the media not communicating what's important but rather chasing clicks/ratings?
- Is this about something that is actually wrong that needs to be paid attention to?
- Is this about the over saturation of non-profits and their inability to market well?
I guess I'll have to see for myself.
Vague nouns: "the worst humanitarian crisis"... just say what it is!
Appeals to contrarianism/moral highground-ism: "Nobody is"... obviously some people are paying attention otherwise there wouldn't be an article about it. There is also the ego reinforcement that comes with the person being one of the "nobodys" that is paying attention.
Grandiose claims to grab attention: "Since world war 2"... Really? Tens of millions were killed, a genocide took place, and a nuclear bomb was dropped, and you're saying this is in second place? Give me a break.
Total clickbait
Appeals to contrarianism/moral highground-ism: "Nobody is"... obviously some people are paying attention otherwise there wouldn't be an article about it. There is also the ego reinforcement that comes with the person being one of the "nobodys" that is paying attention.
Grandiose claims to grab attention: "Since world war 2"... Really? Tens of millions were killed, a genocide took place, and a nuclear bomb was dropped, and you're saying this is in second place? Give me a break.
Total clickbait
"the danger that about 20 million people in four countries will suffer famine in the coming months, and that hundreds of thousands of children will starve to death."
This does not qualify as clickbait.
This does not qualify as clickbait.
It does qualify as clickbait given that it being billed as "the worst" over a period that includes the great Chinese Famine of 1959-1961. Estimates of how many died are in the range 15-45 million. In other words more DIED in that famine than are likely to be HUNGRY in this one.
The projected death toll is also below what actually happened to Cambodia in the late 1970s, in Rwanda in the 1994 genocide, during the second Congo War from 1998-2004, etc.
This is really, really terrible. You can say that without having amnesia about how many other really, really terrible things have happened.
The projected death toll is also below what actually happened to Cambodia in the late 1970s, in Rwanda in the 1994 genocide, during the second Congo War from 1998-2004, etc.
This is really, really terrible. You can say that without having amnesia about how many other really, really terrible things have happened.
Great examples. I was completely ignorant of the great Chinese famine, and didn't realize how high the death tolls of the other events you mentioned were. Thanks for educating me.
Seems like a personal problem for the media. Is the point of this article just to say what a shitty job they do on informing their readers about things that actually matter.
The Media seems to have this lowest common denominator "popularity contest reporting": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory
So -- what would make a social bookmarking service (reddit / machine-ranked news sites) more helpful? And, what would be helpful to a consumer of news? Would it be defined as, keeping the reader engaged and contributing to their suite of social causes (e.g. consuming media comprised of "40% Bieber, 30% Viability of the Planet, 30% Automobiles")?
To make the bookmarking service more helpful, a service could facilitate codifying topics' seriousness. Perhaps manually through a user generated voting/weighting scheme, e.g. "[X] This story concerns life-or-death issues for 10-20 million people."
Then once that information is associated with a subject, some smart agent could automatically carry this characterization around along with the user's surfing so that each article they read includes, in a side-bar perhaps, the "seriousness" of the subject.
Making it helpful is the hard part, for me. So, finally to "help", it could help the reader conclude the projected utility of spending the time to actually read any given webpage, and share reports about their 'budget' of time spend consuming media of their preference.
So -- what would make a social bookmarking service (reddit / machine-ranked news sites) more helpful? And, what would be helpful to a consumer of news? Would it be defined as, keeping the reader engaged and contributing to their suite of social causes (e.g. consuming media comprised of "40% Bieber, 30% Viability of the Planet, 30% Automobiles")?
To make the bookmarking service more helpful, a service could facilitate codifying topics' seriousness. Perhaps manually through a user generated voting/weighting scheme, e.g. "[X] This story concerns life-or-death issues for 10-20 million people."
Then once that information is associated with a subject, some smart agent could automatically carry this characterization around along with the user's surfing so that each article they read includes, in a side-bar perhaps, the "seriousness" of the subject.
Making it helpful is the hard part, for me. So, finally to "help", it could help the reader conclude the projected utility of spending the time to actually read any given webpage, and share reports about their 'budget' of time spend consuming media of their preference.
No one listens to what the media reports, these days. There have been loads of detailed articles in all forms - TV reports, print articles, radio reports, web specials, everything.
The problem is that certain persons of interest (cough The D) or crises (migrants, wars, financial crises) overload the media system, plus people who are poor don't have the mental capacity (or the will) to engage in this debate.
Also, many people just don't care, even if people are dying - at a local nazi demonstration, someone literally said "it's just ni..ers". Racism is well alive, especially when people don't have much left (e.g. after becoming jobless due to German reunification scandals) and right-wing politicians fuel the fire by telling people that refugees might steal their social aid or other cr.p.
The problem is that certain persons of interest (cough The D) or crises (migrants, wars, financial crises) overload the media system, plus people who are poor don't have the mental capacity (or the will) to engage in this debate.
Also, many people just don't care, even if people are dying - at a local nazi demonstration, someone literally said "it's just ni..ers". Racism is well alive, especially when people don't have much left (e.g. after becoming jobless due to German reunification scandals) and right-wing politicians fuel the fire by telling people that refugees might steal their social aid or other cr.p.
I'm not sure it's accurate to blame Trump for (what comes down to) crap American "journalism." A couple times a week I catch the BCC World News on the radio and the contrast between that news and our "news" is almost the difference between fact and fiction.
Don't be fooled. Trump is the best thing to happen to the American "journalism" since CNN invented the 24 hour news channel. They shoe-horned him into a position to win, and now they'll milk his media-friendly tweets all the way to the bank.
Don't be fooled. Trump is the best thing to happen to the American "journalism" since CNN invented the 24 hour news channel. They shoe-horned him into a position to win, and now they'll milk his media-friendly tweets all the way to the bank.
The media aren't making a great case that we should listen to them. I understand that "the media" is not a monolithic block, but certainly any of the "popular" media channels are so clogged with noise it's a sisyphean effort to find the signal.
It goes back to human nature (the way we focus our attention) and the power structures we have in place. I think decentralized power and decentralized media would solve many of the information access problems we have today, but the powers that be will do as much as they can to prevent that.
It goes back to human nature (the way we focus our attention) and the power structures we have in place. I think decentralized power and decentralized media would solve many of the information access problems we have today, but the powers that be will do as much as they can to prevent that.
How shall we fix this (with science)?
I don't believe it's possible with science. What is needed first-of-all is a massive amount of regulation on social networks to get the propaganda (aka the old name for fake news) under control.
Social networks must have adequate human support teams capable of speaking the languages of the countries their users are, they must delete (or, as in traditional media, offer corrections to) fake/defamating posts, they must react to illegal content (e.g. hiding by country as Twitter does is pretty fair game to avoid the censorship debate), and there must be a legal way for people to get appeal in case of accidental misclassified stuff.
For example, my telco provider has no right to terminate my service unless I'm 90 days behind in payments given the importance of telecommunication, so why should a social network not be subject to the same terms, given the importance of social media to modern society. Final terminations of service must be subject to due legal process.
Fix social media and the "classic" media will follow.
Social networks must have adequate human support teams capable of speaking the languages of the countries their users are, they must delete (or, as in traditional media, offer corrections to) fake/defamating posts, they must react to illegal content (e.g. hiding by country as Twitter does is pretty fair game to avoid the censorship debate), and there must be a legal way for people to get appeal in case of accidental misclassified stuff.
For example, my telco provider has no right to terminate my service unless I'm 90 days behind in payments given the importance of telecommunication, so why should a social network not be subject to the same terms, given the importance of social media to modern society. Final terminations of service must be subject to due legal process.
Fix social media and the "classic" media will follow.
My answer would be decentralization of power structures and the elimination of any unnecessary hierarchies. It is only for legacy reasons that a few media groups have our attention. With the internet it should be in principle possible to construct a decentralized system, as was the original goal. Of course new efforts are underway to block that, but with both political efforts (EFF, ACLU) and technological development (but how do we fund it?) we can push back.
I clicked most of the links in the article, and googled a bit, but still can't find a way to donate that puts my money directly towards this problem.
Exactly. I created an account to say this. One of the things preventing many from donating is being sure the funds get to where they're supposed to go. And I think the urgency of this sounds important as well.
I don't know very much about the situation there. If there's anybody that does could you enlighten me about something?
It does not become clear from the article how to problem has come into existence. Only crops have failed in Somalia because of the absence of spring rain. What has caused the famine in the rest of the countries? Was the drought so widespread? Are the other mentioned countries dependent on Somalia for their food? Seems like SA also blocks a port that is vital for food imports.
It does not become clear from the article how to problem has come into existence. Only crops have failed in Somalia because of the absence of spring rain. What has caused the famine in the rest of the countries? Was the drought so widespread? Are the other mentioned countries dependent on Somalia for their food? Seems like SA also blocks a port that is vital for food imports.
One of the linked PDFs has a good summary. https://web.archive.org/web/20170628173535/http://documents.... Nigeria: Conflict has disrupted food production, trade and markets. Somalia: The crisis is caused by three consecutive seasons of poor rainfall. South Sudan: The famine in South Sudan is man-made. Yemen: The conflict in Yemen is a man-made disaster that could reach a point of no-return in 2017.
The Economist's article on it back in March: http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/2171982...
The subtitle: > War, not drought, is the reason people are starving
Warlords don't give a shit about providing food to their people. :(
The subtitle: > War, not drought, is the reason people are starving
Warlords don't give a shit about providing food to their people. :(
As is always the case, follow the money :(
There is holera and famine in Yemen, which a direct cause of the Aglosaxons intevention, especially the exceptional country called The United States. But who cares. By the way, washington post is part of the establishment. Period
I don't think that only providing food and medical treatments is the way to go here. Without educating them to be able to self sustain themselves, the approach of providing them food and vaccines is just perpetuating and amplifying the crisis.
Let's say the funds to overcome the present crisis are found and are enough for a year. What will happen then? All those millions of people survived and another few million children are born. The amount of funds needed this year will not be enough anymore next year and the crisis will be even bigger.
Let's say the funds to overcome the present crisis are found and are enough for a year. What will happen then? All those millions of people survived and another few million children are born. The amount of funds needed this year will not be enough anymore next year and the crisis will be even bigger.
On a semi related note, I read it argued that sending clothing and such to Africa is actually the possible thing to do. Why? Long to short, donations undermine the local economy.
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
Stop spread this no sense. What África needs is US and EU out there! After that they will be able to develop themselves as most societies do.
People rely on the aid and have babies, if the aid wasn't there they'd either not have babies that they couldn't provide for or die.
Probably the best thing to do is stop all involvement in those countries and let them find a natural equilibrium, but that can't happen because all the western countries want the rich resources in those places so they create this vicious cycle.