Why is the Bhutto assassination such a big deal in the press?

Question

I appreciate her life, and I hate the terrorism. But I don't understand why the American press is going nuts over this. Will this have some effect on American safety due to Nuclear concerns? Am I missing something?

I think the heart of my question was: If she wasn't in power, will her death change the country's chessboard. I appreciate the comprehensive answers. I don't appreciate people that punish others for asking a question that many every-day Americans are asking. If you want people to get out of their backyards and be as brilliant as some of you claim to be, let people ask questions and get in the conversation. This IS a question and answer forum.

Answer 1

For several reasons.
1) she was the FIRST woman PM in a muslim country, this is a feat in itself.
2) she was ANTI-taliban, and very vocal about it, very dangerous in that part of th world.
3) even though she was not the PM anymore, she was a state figurehead, and her death has destablized the country.

Answer 2

The Bhutto assassination is such a big deal in the press because the world does not yet know exactly what direction Pakistan will go. Will the situation in Pakistan stabilize or deteriorate? That's the big question everyone is asking now, and in order to answer that question this story has to be watched closely. World War I began with the assassination of a leader of the Austria-Hungarian empire. Likewise, with this event occurring in Pakistan, this already unstable area of the world could become much more unstable. Therefore, the press will probably continue to cover the news here as a top story and will continue to begin the story with the account of Bhutto's assassination. The fact that Pakistan is a large nation with over 150 million people and has nuclear weapons and is a center for terrorist activities and is experiencing major instability only heightens the drama of this latest event and makes it even more surreal. This horrible event and tragedy could be the beginning of much worse things to come.

get the picture?

Answer 3

-Pakistan is in the middle east, and is a Muslim country. It currently has a secular government, but there is a large presence of religious extremists who what control of the country.
-Pakistan has nuclear weapons--not nuclear capability, like Iran, but actual developed and deployed nuclear weapons. Who controls them is a very big deal to the safety of the region and the world.
-Bhutto was a moderate. She was no saint, and may have been the focus of corruption in her administration, but she wasn't violently anti-American or virulently anti-semitic. She wanted what was good for Pakistan, which was modernization, stability, tranquility, and democratic processes. Anyone who wanted her dead probably has an agenda without most of those elements.

Yes, I think you are missing something:

The world is an intertwined place, and what happens in one place far away does impact us here in the US. We have a moral obligation to clean up a mess we pretty much caused in Iraq, and instability in the region if not right next door will make that job more difficult. We are propping up a military dictator who currently runs Pakistan who reminds many of the Shaw of Iran in the 70's, and most of us know things didn't go well with our policy there. Bhutto gave us a reasonable ally in what is sometimes an unreasonable place, and had the benefit of being politically popular in her native country, which would have allowed democracy to have a better foothold and still give us an outcome we liked.

Her death makes that hope more dim.

Answer 4

American media is garbage. I'm sure you know this.
Everytime one of these people die tragically, there's a move to turn that person into an icon. Saves the pundit talking heads the trouble of actually having to think about anything.
See Princess Diana, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul, etc.
It's like a Barbara Walters universe of celebrity worship.
I think it's just a lack of journalistic imagination.

The more important story (that is being ignored) is what is happening in Pakistan and its neighboring countries, like Afghanistan. I'm sorry for her death, but there are bigger things to report on than immortalizing one person.

Answer 5

The big deal about it is--

who will run pakistan
Will the US have any control in Pakistan
Who killed her (who will be punished)
How she died (multiple theories, but obviously she was shot)
What will happen with the PPP (Pakistan People Party)
Who will be the popular canidate for the upcoming election?

It's such a big deal, because it was such a major asassination, and who is to blame is still up in the air.

Who ever becomes prime minister or president will decide whether or not the troops can come in.

Answer 6

Why a big deal? Because IT IS!

Instability in a nuclear power, especially one that's been historically at odds with it's nuclear-armed neighbor, tends to get people talking. ;D

Of course the media, especially cable news , gets a bit hyperventilative , but the underlying story IS important.

Answer 7

Yes, you are missing something.... tho you did elude to it with your mention of "Nuclear concerns"... Are you paying *any* attention to what is actually going on in the world outside of your back yard? Do you have *any* idea at all what would happen if Islamic Jihadist acquire Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? *THATS* why it's such a "big deal" in the press.

Answer 8

She was a beacon for Democracy in Pakistan. Since they do have operable nukes, I do say it's a big deal, yes. Besides all that, she was one fantastic woman. Have you read her history, aside from the rhetoric?

Answer 9

It irritates me how the campaigning candidates in the USA are using her death to further their elections.

Answer 10

you missed nothing, but it seems to me you don't see the forest for the trees, step back and look at the total picture.