Reading News.

Thinking a career in journalism, I started reading different media resources both in Russian and English pretty often. Things happening in Ukraine made me read them even more often, every morning opening the Internet expecting the worst. Yesterday my fears came true: Odessa happened. But it wasn’t just nightmare of a lot of people being killed without any reasons or explanations that made me angry. It was actually another story that was in the top list of BBC that I read right after reading about conflict in Ukraine. Jeremy Clarkson: BBC upbraids presenter over 'racist' clip. Basically, three pages discussing whether some journalist from BBC used an N-word in his clip
“filmed several years ago and never broadcast” or not. The article cites different editors and the journalist himself, gives arguments pro and contra and discusses whether Mr. Clarkson should be punished or not. Finally, it posts the video itself. I watched it three times in a row. Here it is: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/video-watch-jeremy-clarkson-use-3481201

I mean, may be English is not my native language, but  for God’s sake, there is NO N-word in this clip: the guy pronounces his speech very quickly and unclear so you can notice there whatever you want.

            Anyway, at the end of the article the journalist gives other examples of Mr. Clarkson “racism”: joking in his TV-show that “they would not receive complaints because the Mexican ambassador would be asleep” and using the word "slope" as an Asian man crossed a newly built bridge over the River Kwai in Thailand. I read this article right after reading about dozens of people being killed, injured, and arrested, about tanks shooting at the crowd of unarmed people, about the police not trying to prevent any acts of violence. Those stories were next to each other as “the most read” recently. Then I went to The New York Times to see what they say about this slaughter in Ukraine. There was nothing on the first page. Nothing! I had to go to “World” section to see four sentences with scant facts about the building on fire and 30 victims.

So three pages discussing whether some guy said N-word or not and how bad was his joke about Mexican minister and four sentences about dozens of people in Europe (not even in Africa!) dying ridiculously and pointlessly, by someone’s stupid mistake or by someone’s malicious intent. Obviously, everyone chooses whatever is more important for him, what he wants to discuss. But it seems to me ridiculous to organize huge discussions about gay marriages and to argue whether a girl should always pay for herself in the restaurant - in the world where we can’t prevent people from being killed for nothing, for someone’s wealth or power. I don’t talk about politicians and government (I never really relied on those ones), I talk about everyone’s personal responsibility. After all, mass media publishes not only things that they are told to publish but also things that a reader would like to see, that a reader loves to discuss. May be, we should start from fighting for basic human rights before talking about N-words or jokes about someone’s ministers?