‘If social media is an expression of public sentiment, then it seems significant that perhaps the most widely shared tweet on Friday’s terror attacks in Paris was not about Paris at all but rather was about another terror attack, earlier that week, in Beirut:
No media has covered this, but R.I.P to all the people
that lost their lives in Lebanon yesterday from Isis attacks
— Jackjonestv (@jackjonestv) November 14, 2015
…[What] is most striking to me about this tweet, now shared by well over 50,000 people, is that it’s wrong: The media has, in fact, covered the Beirut bombings extensively.The New York Times covered it. The Washington Post, in addition to running an Associated Press story on it, sent reporter Hugh Naylor to cover the blasts and then write a lengthy piece on their aftermath. The Economist had a thoughtful piece reflecting on the attack’s significance. CNN, which rightly or wrongly has a reputation for least-common-denominator news judgment, aired one segment after another on the Beirut bombings. Even the Daily Mail, a British tabloid most known for its gossipy royals coverage, was on the story. And on and on.
Yet these are stories that, like so many stories of previous bombings and mass acts of violence outside of the West, readers have largely ignored…’