In response to Raju's original points about spatial parochialism (with
which I entirely agree), another factor which appears to be evident is
the perceived saturation of news coverage over the past 12 months with
stories of death and disaster: earthquakes, floods, train / plain
crashes, Kosovo etc by news editors. Unfortunately what we as supposed
'critical geographers' might perceive as the most worthy storylines do
not necessarily fit in more general perceptions of newsworthiness.
I suppose the point is that news editors have to think about audience /
readership figures, and this tends to work to the detriment of stories
they might have more of a more duty to print or broadcast. Of course
this then feeds back into the 'spatial parochialism' process, as
'local' stories (often with very little significant content, i.e. which
Spice Girl gets this week's number one slot) achieve prominence over
'global' stories, where perhaps millions of lives are at risk from
natural disaster or general human intolerance and evil.
Hence we see that today, although at least some news relating to Orissa
is present in the mainstream media, it tends to be very superficial and
hardly engages with the reader's or viewer's thoughts. The fact that
large parts of the rest of South-East Asia, especially Vietnam are
currently facing very similar problems does not appear to have made the
news at all.
Looking across to Chechnya, again these processes seem to be evident.
But I wonder if there isn't more to this particular situation. Compare
the news coverage of Kosovo and Chechnya: both are to some extent
semi-autonomous regions with a desire for independence, both had their
freedom-fighters or "terrorists", Chechnya is now experiencing an
onslaught at least as great as that inflicted on the Kosovans by
Serbia. The talk of refugees leaving the province is of total
annihilation and devestation, of indiscriminate bombing of civilians by
the Russian army. Sounds a little bit like ethnic cleansing to me.
But where is the condemnation in the media that we experienced over
Bosnia, Kosovo and to a lesser extent East Timor? Is this just spatial
parochialism again, or is it more to do with the fact that it is Russia
committing these atrocities rather than Serbia? What are the ethical
implications of such a position, where Russia is allowed to get away
with these type of activities when we ('the west') are prepared to
bully a smaller nation into submission? Whilst it is perhaps
understandable that governments might want to avoid a direct stand-off
with Russia, what justification do the press have? What does this all
mean for the 'new world order' if such a thing actually exists? Doesn't
this all show 'the west' to be hypocrites, only interested in
exercising power when it is in our own interests to do so (effectively
bullying) than when it is morally correct to do so?
Personally I see much more in the situation in Russia to be worried
about than in Serbia. If Russia is descending into this kind of violent
totalitarianism (and bearing in mind not only the size of the military
power base, but also the degree to which many aspects of Russian
society are experiencing mafia-style corruption), what of the future?
If we are prepared to let Chechnya go, who will be next? Is this the
start of a slippery path back into an 'old world order'?
Sorry to introduce such an air of pre-millenial gloom, or perhaps it is
justified realism in the light of the media's 'rose-tinted' view of the
world.
Tony.
--------------------------------------------
Tony Jarvis [log in to unmask]
School of Earth Sciences and Geography
Keele University, Keele, Staffs, ST5 5BG.
Tel: 01782 583095 Fax: 01782 715261
--------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|