On July 7, London was shaken by a series of terrorist bombings. As of this posting, the death toll stands at 55. The media responded with 24-hour coverage, timelines, maps, images, personal video footage, and of course, slick, provocative title graphics, complete with musical scores, instilling fear and rivaling some movie previews, declaring "Mayhem in Britain," "London Carnage," and "Terror in London."

This relatively small graphic is from CNN's web site.


Now, since the United States began its war with Iraq, it is estimated that as many as 37,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, with more conservative estimates at around 23,000 (Source: BBC and Iraq Body Count). Some of these deaths were the direct result of our military actions - bombs we dropped and weapons we fired. Many others have died due to the terrorism that plagues the nation in the wake of the political instablitiy resulting from the war.

A sample of recent events in the city of Baghdad:

23 killed at kebab restaurant, June 19

8 killed at bus station, June 22

11 (at least) killed by car bombs at restaurants, June 22

20 killed in marketplace, July 2

3 adults and 24 children killed as soldiers hand out candy, July 13
(Source: Iraq Body Count)

This past week alone, 170 civilians were victims of terrorism in Baghdad. Take a moment, now, to imagine that these news items are describing events that took place this week in the city or town you live in.

These are just numbers. But these numbers illustrate that the media can provide accurate information without providing accurate perspective.

Of course, England is our ally. I have friends from England, and friends in London. Many of us do. As our ally, we understandably share their grief in this time of tragedy, and the media has an obligation to be thorough in its coverage.

But, I have neighbors from Iraq, with family in Baghdad. And I ask, is Iraq our ally now?

I think we'd all agree that providing accurate information is the media's responsibility. But, should the media be responsible for providing accurate perspective, as well? Is it even possible?

As much as I fault the media for not providing accurate perspective, I also acknowledge that it would likely be impossible to do so. Knowing this, do I use the media effectively and appropriately? Or does it use me?

Pop Quiz: Do you know where Darfur is?

In the Darfur region of Sudan, 500,000 villagers have been murdered in the past 2 years. The death toll continues to rise at a rate of 1,500 per month.

I searched for more information on this ongoing tragedy, but unlike the London Bombings and our war in Iraq, there are far fewer news reports from which to draw information. Is this a lack of media access? Or interest?

The media's interest in an issue is a variable that directly affects our access and exposure to the news it covers. What is the media's interest? Are we the media's audience (or its consumers, or its market, or its populace, or its flock)?

What interest does the media have in influencing our access and exposure to its product? What role do we play in influencing the product the media offers? And is there a conflict of interest(s)?

What is your relationship with the media?