FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
Right Intention: UN Peacekeepers Vs. Abu Ghraib

Saturday, March 12, 2005

UN Peacekeepers Vs. Abu Ghraib

It's been almost three weeks since I compared the amount of attention generated by the rapes of Congolese women by UN peacekeepers versus the naked prisoner piles at Abu Ghraib via a Google search. As you may remember, it is my contention that the world does not care about abuse and torture unless it is somehow caused by Americans. Please read the original post for caveats. With that, let's get an update.

Iraq Prison Abuse = 1,150,000 hits. +120,000 more hits than on Feb. 21
America Prison Abuse Iraq = 989,000 hits. +53,000
America Soldier Prison Abuse = 424,000. +1,000
Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse = 392,000. +4,000

Now, let's compare that to...

UN Peacekeeper Congo Rape = 71,100. +7,200
UN Peacekeeper Sex Scandal = 42,300. +4,600
UN Peacekeeper Rape = 10,700. +4,490.

Hmmm. Let's just say I'm less than impressed by media fairness so far. But there's still time to prove me wrong. I'll update this again in a few weeks.

5 Comments:

Blogger trulyblueamerican said...

I don't quite get how "hits" to a subject represents fairness (or not) by the media.

"Hits" better represent how popular a subject is with Joe Surfer.

As for your comment about the unfair treatment of the American abuse scandal: it's largely because the world expects more of America.

If Saddam, for example, is torturing people, that's not really new, is it? If America does it, it's big news.

Unfortunately, in Bush's America, the news value is declining. It's becoming old news.

2:46 PM  
Blogger trulyblueamerican said...

I had another thought:

Iraq wouldn't be so newsworthy, either, if Bush hadn't invaded that country.

I bet if Bush invades the Congo, there'd be alot more "hits" there, wouldn't you agree?

So isn't the better question: Why has Bush chosen to invade Iraq--a diversion from the war on terror--while ignoring the horrific happenings in the Congo?

2:52 PM  
Blogger RD said...

You're kidding. The disparity in the numbers say nothing to you?

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

9:23 PM  
Blogger trulyblueamerican said...

You didn't read my post. The numbers disparity means something. Just not, I think, what you're saying it means.

In the age of blogs, how many "hits" a story has does not say so much about how "the media" is fair or not, as much as it says how much individual interest there is on a given subject.

I agree with your "none so blind" statement.

12:18 AM  
Blogger RD said...

It's also a reflection of how many stories have been done on a subject. That's the point.

But I find moral relativism and moral equivalency from the left fascinating. Which is worse, a man with panties on his head or mass graves? They are the same, of course, because the US was involved. The vaunted UN systematically raping 12 year olds or naked prisoner piles? Equivalent again, because Americans were involved. Apparently that is logical to you. Fascinating.

6:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home