The Boko Haram Kidnapping - Did boys not matter ?

Piliger

The recent appalling kidnapping and claimed selling of 200 girls is an evil and stunning piece of evil. It is documented in Nigeria that all previous kidnapped girls have been gang raped.

However I thing it is a fair question to ask why now ? Why this global outrage now ?

boko Haram has been slaughtering children for years. Hundreds of them. But almost all of them have been boys.

It seems that slaughtered buys don't count for much. Not a major media outlet but a very valid article think. And one that men should pay attention to.

Manach

Perhaps it is a vestige of chivalry that the kidnapping of girls is an act even more beyond the pale.
Perhaps it is information overload, that that world may have gotten more peaceful that in certain areas savagery has increased and there is no easy remedy beyond letting it burn out.
Perhaps it allows a shallow social media campaign to galvanise the digiterari for a few days, and allow them to congratulate themselves for doing something and them for events to blow over so as to continue as normal.

I'd say it's also a question of numbers too, 276 kidnapped girls to be sold into slavery (after who knows what sex crimes and other violence visited on them) makes a bigger news soundbyte than 40 - 59 boys killed. That article refers to 'over 100 girls' which is an odd way to describe 200 plus.

That incident is disgusting and is victim to the same western press apathy that most African atrocities are victim of. The girls plight wasn't front page news until social media put it on top of the agenda either - my guess is that otherwise it'd be as ignored as the tragedy of the boys in the school.

Susie564

Candie wrote: »

I'd say it's also a question of numbers too, 276 kidnapped girls to be sold into slavery (after who knows what sex crimes and other violence visited on them) makes a bigger news soundbyte than 40 - 59 boys killed. That article refers to 'over 100 girls' which is an odd way to describe 200 plus.

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps it is a vestige of chivalry that the kidnapping of girls is an act even more beyond the pale.

I agree with the above but also that the girls were kidnapped because they were being educated and this group believe females should not be educated is the kind of thing to stir the western masses.

I think what has happened/is happening is absolutely awful but I hate these media campaigns, they really quite annoy me. But then maybe without it the pressure would not be there to do something about it, like with the story the previous poster put up. I was reading yesterday that the photos being used in the campaign are from a totally unrelated story and the owner of the photos is not happy either.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/the-real-story-about-the-wrong-photos-in-bringbackourgirls/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

Pawwed Rig

Candie wrote: »

That incident is disgusting and is victim to the same western press apathy that most African atrocities are victim of. The girls plight wasn't front page news until social media put it on top of the agenda either - my guess is that otherwise it'd be as ignored as the tragedy of the boys in the school.

I think that is slightly unfair on the West. The African Union should be trying to sort this one out. They are constantly arguing that the West is too focused on Africa while willing to turn a blind eye to other areas (in relation to war crimes etc). I think the West has no business getting involved here and it should be sorted by the Africans or the Islamic nations. Like the Islamic countries are some of the richest on Earth. The West is never thanked for interfering in these matters.

Regarding Piligers post, it is a fair point and the same thing has been highlighted in the Syria conflict that the males are completely disposable.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think that is slightly unfair on the West. The African Union should be trying to sort this one out. They are constantly arguing that the West is too focused on Africa while willing to turn a blind eye to other areas (in relation to war crimes etc). I think the West has no business getting involved here and it should be sorted by the Africans or the Islamic nations. Like the Islamic countries are some of the richest on Earth. The West is never thanked for interfering in these matters.

Regarding Piligers post, it is a fair point and the same thing has been highlighted in the Syria conflict that the males are completely disposable.

Yeah, I was talking about Western press apathy as stated, not Western intervention.

I see no reason to believe that this would have had any coverage in the Western press if social media hadn't been used to raise awareness. It had been ignored for several days until it gained momentum.

Girls matter more, simple as that.

Pawwed Rig

Candie wrote: »

Yeah, I was talking about Western press apathy as stated, not Western intervention.

That is the point. These things happen constantly in many African countries that it ceases to become surprising or news. There is constant slaughter in countries like Angola, Chad, Sierra Leone and now South Sudan that to report on every atrocity would need a dedicated publication at this point. It is a sad fact that we become desensitised to these events due to their frequency. For example I remember the time of Band Aid back in the 80's seeing pictures of the famine victims in Ethiopia and being appalled by them. Yet today I was out and about and there was a similar pic for Concern on a billboard and I didn't look twice at it.

A brief look at the bbc Africa news for today gives the following
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-27348776
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27334044
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27344863
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27327759
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27328007

This is just 1 day. To get emotionally involved in these issues would drive a person crazy.

Piliger

Candie wrote: »

I'd say it's also a question of numbers too, 276 kidnapped girls to be sold into slavery (after who knows what sex crimes and other violence visited on them) makes a bigger news soundbyte than 40 - 59 boys killed.

Except that cumulatively it is a far higher number of boys killed.

That article refers to 'over 100 girls' which is an odd way to describe 200 plus.

It is referring to separate incidents as far as I can see.

That incident is disgusting and is victim to the same western press apathy that most African atrocities are victim of. The girls plight wasn't front page news until social media put it on top of the agenda either - my guess is that otherwise it'd be as ignored as the tragedy of the boys in the school.

But now that is not being ignored, now that these Boko Haram scum are in the daily, if not hourly news, why is it that the media make no effort to even mention in passing that by the way they have slaughtered hundreds of boys....

It seems that in the current media and political Zeitgeist, slaughtering boys is not as bad as kidnapping girls....

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

Girls matter more, simple as that.

I personally and delighted this kind of appalling and butchering group of scum are being targeted and are in the news, or that these girls get rescued or avenged and hopefully they will chop up each Boko Haram member, slowly.

But I still believe that this question I posed has to be asked. Why now ? Why only after girls get kidnapped ?

I think it is another, yet another, symptom of what is happening in a media that is so overpoweringly driven by feminist agendas. Men and men as victims simply do not exist. Men as victims of domestic abuse don't exist. Men as rape victims don't exist. Only women victims count, and it seems all women are victims all of the time. It is impossible to escape the powerful message that is being sent on a daily basis these days.

beks101

Perhaps there is a geographical bias? Perhaps American audiences are more interested in news from Eastern Europe and Southern Russia than South America and Africa because more Americans can relate to European ethnic heritage. Perhaps news outlets simply do not have the resources to cover events in regions of the world that do not command the geopolitical influence that Russia does.

Honestly, this goes some ways to explaining media coverage of some events versus the lack of coverage of tangibly 'just as bad or worse' crimes that may happen globally.

As someone who works at a US news desk, the first thing that comes to mind with any story that pops up on the wires is, how, if at all, does this relate to our audience? There are no-brainers for obvious reasons - Ukraine and Russia (age-old US relationship with Moscow and notoriously prickly US-Putin relations), Israel and Europe-wide stories because of close US ties, anything US government or foreign policy-related, tragedies involving Americans, large-scale disasters.

But realistically more often than not it's down to practicalities. The accessibility of the story from a resources perspective. Visa or security issues for journalists. It's very hard to tell a story without pictures, reporters on the ground and access to official information from the relevant authorities and if those things are absent, stories will often slip under the radar because they are logistically impossible. They involve masses of expense that networks simply can't afford with such little return on investment in terms of visuals, live coverage and audience ratings.

We saw this recently with the landslides in Afghanistan - initial reports placed the death toll above 3,000 - shocking, devastating - but due to its sheer remoteness of the location and the lack of modern facilities, the broadband and satellite potential was virtually nil, resources on the ground scarce and the ones that were available were at sky-rocket prices with slow speed, and so coverage waned fairly fast.

This Nigerian kidnapping story only seemed to escalate media-wise about a week after its actual occurrence as pictures, reporters and access to information became available. Social media seemed to focus on it first, sparking agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press to send reporters, who then fed daily wire updates - which means immediate access to reliable information for news networks around the world.

Then pictures came along - a Boko Haram video featuring a snarling, aggressive, almost cartoonishly evil radical leader - which seemed the emphasize the sheer horror of what had actually occurred - and in a very broadcastable way. Then US leader comments - international pressure - story escalation with Boko Haram striking again in a market massacre with the eyes of the world on them - and suddenly live satellite facilities are opening up in Nigeria and journalists are streaming in.

And that's kind of the workings of coverage of these things from a media perspective. It's not really as black-and-white as 'girls matter more' or some sort of 'feminist agenda' in news organizations. Like any company, the mundane day-to-day logistics, finances and practicalities come into play, as well as things like geographical bias and audience catering playing a part.

diveout

I think it's perfectly valid to argue that boys don't matter much.

The media is entirely selective about what it prioritises so I don't really by the whole shtick about the newsroom. Madeleine McCann is a case in point. Thousands of kids go missing everyday but this pretty little blonde one gets all the attention?

If it were 50 girls burned alive, the yes it would have gotten attention, just like the War on Women captivates the west,... girls kidnapped or denied education...sex slavery....

It certainly deserves attention, but so do 50 boys getting burned alive. Seriously, how did that get ignored?

strobe

I can't be the only one that hears 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' play in their head whenever they hear this story mentioned?

PucaMama

why does it have to be a competition? why is it wrong to mention girls but not boys? this story is about girls, only girls were taken in this incident why is it suddenly wrong to say that?

Standman

PucaMama wrote: »

why does it have to be a competition? why is it wrong to mention girls but not boys? this story is about girls, only girls were taken in this incident why is it suddenly wrong to say that?

What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being "wrong to mention girls"?

PucaMama

Standman wrote: »

What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being "wrong to mention girls"?

the posters on here are making an issue out of people being concerned about the girls thats what im talking about. just because its girls and not boys in the news.

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

why does it have to be a competition? why is it wrong to mention girls but not boys? this story is about girls, only girls were taken in this incident why is it suddenly wrong to say that?

Because they've been doing it to boys for years by the looks of things and the mainstream media hasn't said a word about it.

Icemancometh

PucaMama wrote: »

the posters on here are making an issue out of people being concerned about the girls thats what im talking about. just because its girls and not boys in the news.

I think the issue is that no one seemed to care when boys were being harmed, but when girls were abducted, it became an international incident.

PucaMama

if it was reversed, i.e. boys mentioned but not girls the posters on here wouldnt care. all i see on here lately is how men are victims, and noone cares. when in fact anyone would feel for the victims in this situation, male or female, young or old.

OldRio

'if it was reversed, i.e. boys mentioned but not girls the posters on here wouldnt care'

I just cannot get my head around this. There is so much wrong with that sentence.

eviltwin

I would have said it was due to the numbers, 200 is a much greater headline than 50. There were 8 girls kidnapped after the 200 girls were taken and that didn't get much attention. All stories of this nature should get publicity but in a media that only have a finite ability to report on stories you can understand can't you why numbers count. If 200 boys had been murdered we would have heard about it.

eviltwin

PucaMama wrote: »

if it was reversed, i.e. boys mentioned but not girls the posters on here wouldnt care. all i see on here lately is how men are victims, and noone cares. when in fact anyone would feel for the victims in this situation, male or female, young or old.

I agree. I'm actually disgusted its being used as an example of how men are hard done by, seriously its so much more than having equal coverage in the press.

What happened to both the boys and girls is horrific, I can't even begin to get my head around the way these groups think and act and the impact on their families. Its a human rights issue and we are only being told the tip of the iceberg, there are probably daily atrocities being visited on people in the area that we never hear about.

PucaMama

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree. I'm actually disgusted its being used as an example of how men are hard done by, seriously its so much more than having equal coverage in the press.

What happened to both the boys and girls is horrific, I can't even begin to get my head around the way these groups think and act and the impact on their families. Its a human rights issue and we are only being told the tip of the iceberg, there are probably daily atrocities being visited on people in the area that we never hear about.

cant imagine having to live with losing sons and daughters, brothers and sisters :mad:

diveout

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree. I'm actually disgusted its being used as an example of how men are hard done by, seriously its so much more than having equal coverage in the press.

What happened to both the boys and girls is horrific, I can't even begin to get my head around the way these groups think and act and the impact on their families. Its a human rights issue and we are only being told the tip of the iceberg, there are probably daily atrocities being visited on people in the area that we never hear about.

I think it's a fair point. Considering the amount of garbage on the news, no one could pick this up? Seriously a few weeks ago the boat to Cherbourg was cancelled and that even made the news. It made abc news australia in February if you look at the date on the link but why have I not heard about it until now? Because what? Various rugby team victories were more important?

If it were 50 boys in an American primary school burned alive by some crazy lunatic it would be all over the news and there would be a stream of posts on AH with 'Merica' for 50 pages.

PucaMama

diveout wrote: »

I think it's a fair point. Considering the amount of garbage on the news, no one could pick this up? Seriously a few weeks ago the boat to Cherbourg was cancelled and that even made the news. It made abc news australia in February if you look at the date on the link but why have I not heard about it until now? Because what? Various rugby team victories were more important?

If it were 50 boys in an American primary school burned alive by some crazy lunatic it would be all over the news and there would be a stream of posts on AH with 'Merica' for 50 pages.

thats always how its been with american stories whether they are about men or women.

eviltwin

diveout wrote: »

I think it's a fair point. Considering the amount of garbage on the news, no one could pick this up? Seriously a few weeks ago the boat to Cherbourg was cancelled and that even made the news. It made abc news australia in February if you look at the date on the link but why have I not heard about it until now? Because what? Various rugby team victories were more important?

If it were 50 boys in an American primary school burned alive by some crazy lunatic it would be all over the news and there would be a stream of posts on AH with 'Merica' for 50 pages.

Then you can argue its racist as well as sexist. Black Africans don't matter as much as white Westerners. But really there is only so much news time available and when you take out local issues you haven't much time left for international news. Its then a question of what is more news worthy. At least we have heard of Boko Haram now and we are aware of them and their acts which can only be good for ALL the people of that region regardless of their gender, age etc.

Piliger

beks101 wrote: »

And that's kind of the workings of coverage of these things from a media perspective. It's not really as black-and-white as 'girls matter more' or some sort of 'feminist agenda' in news organizations. Like any company, the mundane day-to-day logistics, finances and practicalities come into play, as well as things like geographical bias and audience catering playing a part.

While all very interest, and it is, this doesn't go anywhere close to tackling the heart of the subject. All it does is explain the current state of US news organisations.

What you are essentially saying is that when boys were being killed and burnt to death all through 2012, US news desks were ignoring it because it was too expensive to cover and US news desks didn't think it related to their audiences. The fact is that most US networks already have representatives in Nigeria and other close by countries. And the excuse of not being able to get pictures is a lame one.

That doesn't go anywhere toward explaining why no European coverage, no BBC outrage. The BBC have had a representative in Nigeria for the last three years covering other Nigerian news.

No. I get where you are coming from but this doesn't cut it. The fact is that when boys were being slaughtered in every attack by this Haram group, it just wasn't deemed important, and it wasn't deemed 'sellable'.

Once young pretty photogenic girls arrived .. kidnapped and potentially raped and abused ... then the news networks lit up across Europe and the USA.

Piliger

PucaMama wrote: »

if it was reversed, i.e. boys mentioned but not girls the posters on here wouldnt care. all i see on here lately is how men are victims, and noone cares. when in fact anyone would feel for the victims in this situation, male or female, young or old.

Nonsense. Why are we talking about it here ? because the name of the forum is "The Gentlemen's Club" so just like when you post to "the Ladies lounge" about issues that matter to women, we talk about matters that matter to men.

And when the slaughtering of over a hundred, minimum,boys over the course of a couple of years attracts no media coverage .. and then kidnapping of girls sets the world alit - I would suggest to you that that is an appalling sexist attitude by the media, and something that matters to men.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree. I'm actually disgusted its being used as an example of how men are hard done by, seriously its so much more than having equal coverage in the press.

What happened to both the boys and girls is horrific, I can't even begin to get my head around the way these groups think and act and the impact on their families. Its a human rights issue and we are only being told the tip of the iceberg, there are probably daily atrocities being visited on people in the area that we never hear about.

So you are fine that there was no coverage, no outrage, no interest when it was boys. You are fine that it's only when it's girls that the media wakes up. And you think it's disgusting when we men draw attention to that fact....?

matthew8

A child being kidnapped stays in the news longer than a murdered child in general. A kidnapping is a story the media can follow, they can bring developments in the story each day and people can follow it and talk about what Western governments can try and do to save the kids. It was the same for McCann. That story wouldn't have stayed in the news for half as long if she had been killed and that was the end of it.

GalwayGuy2

if it was reversed, i.e. boys mentioned but not girls the posters on here wouldnt care. all i see on here lately is how men are victims, and noone cares. when in fact anyone would feel for the victims in this situation, male or female, young or old.

Tbh, they wouldn't have to. Other people would be raising a huge ruckus about it.

Tbh, I think this thread raises a fair point.

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

While all very interest, and it is, this doesn't go anywhere close to tackling the heart of the subject. All it does is explain the current state of US news organisations.

What you are essentially saying is that when boys were being killed and burnt to death all through 2012, US news desks were ignoring it because it was too expensive to cover and US news desks didn't think it related to their audiences. The fact is that most US networks already have representatives in Nigeria and other close by countries. And the excuse of not being able to get pictures is a lame one.

That doesn't go anywhere toward explaining why no European coverage, no BBC outrage. The BBC have had a representative in Nigeria for the last three years covering other Nigerian news.

No. I get where you are coming from but this doesn't cut it. The fact is that when boys were being slaughtered in every attack by this Haram group, it just wasn't deemed important, and it wasn't deemed 'sellable'

Once young pretty photogenic girls arrived .. kidnapped and potentially raped and abused ... then the news networks lit up across Europe and the USA.

I introduced a bit of logic and insight to what seemed to me to be a black-and-white idea about agendas. The media doesn't care about men. There's a feminist agenda.

I'll never hold my hands up and say there are no media biases, but to state the above is simply untrue. There are larger considerations in newsrooms than "is this a sexy story" believe it or not, and they influence the decision making on international coverage on a daily - actually, minutely - basis.

SherlockWatson

Its probably a lack of awareness more than anything else I'd imagine!

Liam McPoyle

Piliger wrote: »

Nonsense. Why are we talking about it here ? because the name of the forum is "The Gentlemen's Club" so just like when you post to "the Ladies lounge" about issues that matter to women, we talk about matters that matter to men.

And when the slaughtering of over a hundred, minimum,boys over the course of a couple of years attracts no media coverage .. and then kidnapping of girls sets the world alit - I would suggest to you that that is an appalling sexist attitude by the media, and something that matters to men.

I think the bolded bit has alot to do with it tbh. 200 people been kidnapped at the same time sends alot more shockwaves than people going missing/been killed over the course of a few years.*

Just look at how that Joseph Kony story broke last year I believe, how many people knew about him before yer man and his Facebook video.

I think to imply that its some kind of feminist conspiracy or what ever tin foil hat theory you have is disingenuous and highly disrespectful to all the victims.


*just to state the obvious, Im in no way saying that the fact its happened over the course of a couple of years makes it unimportant, any innocent person thats kidnapped or murdered or what ever is equally important as the next one.

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

So you are fine that there was no coverage, no outrage, no interest when it was boys. You are fine that it's only when it's girls that the media wakes up. And you think it's disgusting when we men draw attention to that fact....?

Read my post. I think its disgusting this act is being used to further the 'poor men' chip that certain posters have on their shoulder. Failure to report previous acts probably has more to do with the fact they happened in Africa than any conspiracy against men in the media.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

Read my post. I think its disgusting this act is being used to further the 'poor men' chip that certain posters have on their shoulder. Failure to report previous acts probably has more to do with the fact they happened in Africa than any conspiracy against men in the media.

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

There is a core of posters here who go round in circles on anything they can find that they can possibly put a male victimisation spin on, no matter how much of a stretch - which is exactly what they accuse 'the feminists' - that great hive-mind of misandric, man-hating, media-controlling, oppressive female illuminati of.

It's a tragedy what happened to the boys. One boy is a tragedy, over 100 is an outrage of epic proportions. Using kidnapped girls - in one incident, in far greater number - which ramps up the immediate impact, initally ignored by world press and only publicised because of a social media campaign - as a foil to complain about boys being ignored in a world that ignores so many African atrocities, is transparently seeking to make a false equivalence to support a fallacious theory. The lack of press interest is much more likely to be as a result of atrocity fatigue or a casual strain of racism that sees things happening in a place far away, to poor, black people, as being of little interest to the majority white consumers of the Western news media.

The cadre of posters who see everything through the lens of confirmation bias all agree. Surprise, surprise.

Eviltwin is right, it's a new low.

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

Does nothing but furthers what is an obvious agenda on your part tbh Piliger.

diveout

It's a perfectly valid criticism. If the news has time for Rugby scores, it has time to report the live burning of 50 school boys by radical groups.

It captures the West's imagination because it's male on female violence.

beks101

diveout wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid criticism. If the news has time for Rugby scores, it has time to report the live burning of 50 school boys by radical groups.

It may or may not surprise you, but most news programmes / papers / outlets are comprised of varying facets of news, including also sports, entertainment, arts sections etc. Even hard news and current affairs publications will devote space to these other categories, as the alternative is to report an unending stream of war, death, violence, destruction, homicide, poverty and natural disasters.

These other areas are necessarily 'selective' too. They'll report on rugby instead of maybe lacrosse, or cricket, or local badminton or national tennis championships. For a myriad of reasons, including audience appetite, resources, air time restrictions and the absolute infeasibility of reporting on every terrible or wonderful sporting event that happens all over the world on any particular day.

The idea this thread brings up is that western media deliberately omits these male victims of violence in a sinister fashion, as if it's a ploy to follow some farcical feminist agenda.

Which is just not the case. There are only so many news stories one bulletin / daily newspaper can broadcast or print. There is only so much money in any one newsroom and there are only so many staff on any given day. And the reporting of each and every story presents logistical challenges, some of them insurmountable. And that's just speaking of the stories that crop up on international news organizations' radars. Many, many don't. Many remain tragedies in their local areas because the area is so remote, comms are non-existent and a local culture of violence has desensitized even the natives.

Piliger

beks101 wrote: »

Does nothing but furthers what is an obvious agenda on your part tbh Piliger.

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists. Your agenda is also obvious.

Piliger

beks101 wrote: »

The idea this thread brings up is that western media deliberately omits these male victims of violence in a sinister fashion, as if it's a ploy to follow some farcical feminist agenda.

And yet you have failed to explain why the massacred boys did not produce any similar outrage. Only kidnapped girls.

The sexist nature of the coverage is evident. The same reason we hear every week about women as the sole victims of domestic violence. The same reason we here only about girls being trafficked for sex, and the boys are ignored.

GalwayGuy2

A part of me likes these agendas by the MRA's.

It might make some feminists look closer at their own actions/arguments.

A lot of critiques that are raised against this rather agenda-ee theory are rarely raised when it's an opinion that a poster agrees on.

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists.

LOL
OK
Hope that works out for you.

jackofalltrades

Candie wrote: »

The lack of press interest is much more likely to be as a result of atrocity fatigue or a casual strain of racism that sees things happening in a place far away, to poor, black people, as being of little interest to the majority white consumers of the Western news media.

There's only so many atrocities/famines/civil wars that you can put up with on the News, before you turn it off to protect your sanity.

I think news from Africa has reached that point for a lot of people, especially seeing as economic and social progress seems to be going backwards in some countries.

PucaMama

Piliger wrote: »

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists. Your agenda is also obvious.

and you will use the kidnapping of 200+ girls to further your agenda :rolleyes:

Zulu

Feminists? Sigh. Well if there was a chance for a sensible conversation to be had its gone now.

Agends and deep-throating opinions ftw. :rolleyes:

Mike747

eviltwin wrote: »

I would have said it was due to the numbers, 200 is a much greater headline than 50. There were 8 girls kidnapped after the 200 girls were taken and that didn't get much attention. All stories of this nature should get publicity but in a media that only have a finite ability to report on stories you can understand can't you why numbers count. If 200 boys had been murdered we would have heard about it.

Indeed we would hear about it. Briefly on the news round up. And then the story would be forgotten.

the_syco

Piliger wrote: »

It seems that slaughtered buys don't count for much. Not a major media outlet but a very valid article think. And one that men should pay attention to.

Was there a protest by their families over it? 100 mothers that know how to use the media certainly knew how to get the worlds attention.

The other way to look at it is that the girls would sold off as slaves. Thus they are still alive, and need to be rescued. Sadly, it seems because the boys are dead, so is any such story. With American soldiers coming back dead every day, boys getting killed doesn't really sound like a news story that news channels like to report.

But a chance of a good gung-ho American led feel-good family-friendly (the ends, not the means) rescue mission gets people following the news for updates. And thus, girls in captivity sells better than boys dead.


TL:DR dead boys don't help ratings as much as girls about to sold into possible sex slavery.

eviltwin

There are violent acts happening on a global scale every day that we never hear about. Or we hear about it briefly and the next day its onto something else.

Boko Haram have been around for years but it was only after the attacks on Abjua that they became newsworthy because suddenly they were threatening Westerners. If you want to label the media anything you could call them out for being racist ( black Africans aren't important ) or ageist ( children are more newsworthy than adults ). Of course now the Americans are involved too which automatically makes it a better story.

The cynic in me says that no one really gives a toss about these girls and that its just a huge PR exercise, save the girls, the Americans are heroes yada yada.

There is at least a glimmer of hope that if these girls are still alive that they may be found and returned home, a dead person is a dead person. The media love an ongoing story that keep people glued to their sets, all they care about is ratings regardless of the gender of the people involved.

No boys did not matter - sure aren't all girls good and boys bad? The boys are tough and should "man up" to survive whereas the poor gurlies will be all scared and upset.

Isn't that the crap we're force fed from an early age?