Git it. (h/t aminatou)
The Boston bombing was, undoubtedly, a horrific event, and a big story. We don’t call for some exact equivalence in minutes of TV time devoted to each crime event. But no reasonable person can say that the tidal wave of news coverage that accompanied it was a rational and proportional response to its importance for our nation, when taken in the context of “things that might actually hurt you.” The average American knows who Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is, but has no idea how the gun crime rate has changed in the past 20 years. (It’s gone down. And it still kills far, far more people than 9/11 did, which itself killed hundreds of times more people than the Boston bombing did.) That is not the product of balanced journalism. That is the product of ideology in action.
We do not actually care about “terror” as it is commonly defined. If we did, we would be transfixed by daily handgun homicides, and by the unemployment rate, and by the lack of public health care, and by public schools that are neither safe nor effective— the things that terrorize everyday Americans. We would be more concerned by real auto accidents than by theoretical airplane bombings. We would invest in helping the poor at home, rather than in killing the poor abroad. We would be far more absorbed by violence in Chicago than in Boston, because it is so much more common. Simple math would guide our assessment of life’s risks. The reality, of course, is the opposite."
Extremely relevant to this Shonda story and the email thread I’m discussing it on with several ladies.