marharth Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 You are comparing things that kill people to something that you could never see again. No one wants to live in a sad and miserable life and heck the wedding was the only good thing that has happened in 2011 so far. No one's saying that people are apathetic to death but if people keep on seeing death after death after death, then people will be desensitised and don't care anymore. You need good news to counter the bad news, especially since everyone wanted them to go down the alter for years now. It's called media balance. Exactly. Now if you are unhappy with media coverage...why not email and write them? Hmm? Seriously...you have like a body count going? How morose.I already replied to brokenenergy, so read that please. Email and writing a news company to try to get them to change...? That is bordering on a joke. I don't have a "body count" going. I am keeping this thread updated with the deaths. Also can you answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilneko Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I think there should be a variant of Godwin's Law for people invoking 9/11. :rolleyes: What should we call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenergy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 9/11 Law; a law where as the debate continues, the probability of 9/11 being brought up reaches to one. Do I get a prize now? I should add Katrina too the list too, I call it the death law; a law where as the debate continues, the probability of a citation of an event with a high body count reaches to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 I think there should be a variant of Godwin's Law for people invoking 9/11. :rolleyes: What should we call it?That was humorous, but I think brokenenergy kinda ruined it. Can someone answer my question? I seriously would like to know the minimum requirements to be a news story above the royal wedding. I understand why people think its more important, at this point there is not much of a debate. I just would like to know what the requirements would be to be a news story that would top the royal wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I seriously would like to know the minimum requirements to be a news story above the royal wedding. Lets go by years, rather than death count. If we go by the time between Charle's/Diana's wedding and William's/Kate's wedding then these weddings have a rarity of once every 30 years. How rare are tornadoes in the USA with a death count above 300? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenergy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I guess my satire didn't get though. The British Monarchy are one of the world's oldest western monarchy in the world (and the most powerful). They are the most well known monarchy in the world as well. It's also a good news story, something that it's suppose to feel good and make people happy for several hours without returning to the horrible reality known as life. It happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) I seriously would like to know the minimum requirements to be a news story above the royal wedding. Lets go by years, rather than death count. If we go by the time between Charle's/Diana's wedding and William's/Kate's wedding then these weddings have a rarity of once every 30 years. How rare are tornadoes in the USA with a death count above 300? It looks like it was 1932 or so, in 1924 over 700 died. But I honestly have no problem with coverage of the Royal Wedding and I have watched a total of 0 minutes of coverage. It's obvious it's important enough to enough people the media feels it warrants extensive coverage. I just wonder what would have happened if Micheal Jackson had died the day before, split screen maybe? Edit: I would also add that I think the tornado coverage would have been bigger but 300 people in comparison to the over 20,000 recently in Japan pales in scope How much death and destruction do we need to see? Edited May 1, 2011 by csgators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It looks like it was 1932 or so, in 1924 over 700 died. Let me re-clarify what I asked; as a UK resident we often forget differences in natural disasters between tornadoes and hurricanes, as we don't get them. Let me extend it to either, or better yet, natural disasters as a group. Royal weddings as a group and natural disasters as a group. Which is rarer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It looks like it was 1932 or so, in 1924 over 700 died. Let me re-clarify what I asked; as a UK resident we often forget differences in natural disasters between tornadoes and hurricanes, as we don't get them. Let me extend it to either, or better yet, natural disasters as a group. Royal weddings as a group and natural disasters as a group. Which is rarer? I totally agree, natural disasters of the scale we recently saw are rare but not as rare as a royal wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Its unfair to group small natural disasters with one big wedding. It is fair to group large natural disasters with tornadoes (seeing as large tornadoes natural disasters are rare) to one big wedding. If you want to group ALL natural disasters then group them with ALL weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now