We were a group of people watching news after a recent catastrophe (where many people died).
Then someone suddenly asked, sincerely, why only under certain circumstances, some people get a beautiful memorial ceremony while others don't.
Here is an example:
A middle-class tourist dies in a huge natural disaster. He has been previously unknown for the gerenal public but since many many people died in the same disaster, there is a ceremony held and a respectful silent moment in the airport/harbor/any place relevant. His family gets help and aid from the state.
Similarly, a middle-class person is fixing a television in his house when he dies because of an electrical shock. He also has a family but since he "dies alone" he doesn't get such memorial. Was his life "less worthy"?
If a loved one dies, isn't the situation and sorrow same for both of these families?
I believe there might be an explanation and I would be thankful for any replies. (My Q is not meant to be provoking)
2006-08-11 09:18:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The ceremonies are symbolic. And like any symbol, its scope and effect depends upon what it represents.
The large public funeral is not so much for the person but for what that person's death represents. It allows others to participate symbolically and to show their support for the cause.
The electrician's death (in the hypothetical) has less impact on the community as a whole, so the symbolic participation is less.
Ceremonies are not about the recipient. They are about what the populace wants to focus their attention on.
2006-08-11 09:50:08 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The middle class tourist's death took place in a media attractive place, along with several others. It was sweet TV news candy and attracted thousands of viewers. Political pressure from scores of those viewers prompted the state (and possibly the airport) to help the surviving family (and the envelopes stuffed w/ money poured out the family's mailboxes, too).
The poor sap who fries fixing his TV set is not going to blaze the front paper page or make the top TV news (local or network) story of the day. He gets NO public memorial (with TV cams going) and his surviving family will be lucky to get an uncontested fair insurance check---and that's only if the poor sap even had life insurance at all.
That's how life goes: by the media attractiveness meter.
2006-08-11 09:27:12 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Wizard 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, they should both be remembered, the difference, in my opinion is the media, a single death although tragic does not generate enough world or national attention as a natural disaster might. The media is looking for sensationalism, anything to boost the ratings.
2006-08-11 09:27:31 · answer #3 · answered by bobemac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's sick, but people will look for anyway to profit off of someone elses tragedy, including the loss of a loved one.
2006-08-11 09:36:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can you compare natural disaster with electrical schocks? You are just being arogant!
2006-08-11 10:07:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh it's much worse than that. What about the people who arent middle-class or while- they dont even m,ake the news
2006-08-11 10:02:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If something sensational happens its news. Thats the media for you. If it sells its news
2006-08-11 09:24:40 · answer #7 · answered by Granny 1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋