In article , Quasin says...
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> Quasin says...
>> 
>>>If Fox is saying this is the worst natural disaster ever, they have 
>>>little knowledge of history and have failed to google for easily 
>>>available info from USGS and other objective sources.
>> 
>> But they are not alone is saying this. Far more responsible
sources have been
>> saying it too, such as Yahoo! and CNN.
>> 
>
>Not quite true - CNN says "this may be the worst natural disaster in 
>recent years," which is a far cry from "worst ever."

Well, I do have to agree that the CNN statement is more cautious - as they
should be. But that "recent years" may yet turn out to be longer
than you seem
to think.

>BBC says the "tsunami in the Indian Ocean has been described by relief 
>experts as one of the worst natural disasters in recent history."

Again, the same laudable caution.

>Discovery channel says "In 1970, a cyclone and the resulting floods 
>killed 500,000 people, making it the worst natural disaster of the 
>20th Century."

But this is almost as bad as Fox. Besides: if not for the quick response with
drinking water and sanitation, the deaths due to disease following the tsunami
could have reached that number, so that yes, the tsunami would be worse than the
cyclone in the 70s. We don't know yet that it won't, though it does look
promising.

Finally, there is the economic damage. Your rival catastrophes don't even
mention that. Again: entire villages have been wiped out by this tsunami, the
econmies of entire countries -- large countries, not tiny central american ones
-- are severely threatened.

>and "in China in 1887, the Yellow River overflowed its 
>banks, leading to the deaths of 900,000 people."  (And, of course, 
>they are leaving out the 1918-19 flu epidemic that killed somewhere 
>between 20 million and 100 million worldwide, because there is 
>disagreement whether an epidemic is a "natural disaster.")

Which may sound like quibbling. But I think they were right to leave it out.

>There's a big difference between "the worst natural disaster ever" and 
>"the worst in recent years."  For one thing "worse
ever" belittles the 
>reality of other major disasters.  For another, exaggeration doesn't 
>teach people to believe the source in the future.

Actually, although it may not teach _you_ to believe them in the future, it does
teach others to believce them in he future - for better or for worse. I just do
NOT see lots of people learning to disbelieve Fox because of things like this.

On the contrary: I see far too many people who believe whatever Fox tells them
_simply_ because Fox told them waht they wanted to hear during our recent
Presidential campaign. Unfortunately, now they will forgive Fox almost anything.

>  And particularly 
>for those Christians who believe an endtime events timetable, there 
>seem to be a big theological difference between "worst ever" and 
>awareness that natural disaster deaths on this scale and larger are, 
>alas, not rare.
>
>The web site Free Republic (whoever they are) points out that "As sad 
>as it is, the SE Asia earthquake is not the worst natural disaster 
>ever...The SE Asia disaster, however, seems to be a significant one 
>because there are many Westerners, including 'celebrities', died in 
>this unfortunate event."
>
>I HOPE they are wrong,

Well, they are not.

> that the same level of press attention and 
>relief effort would have taken place even if NO Americans, Germans, 
>British, Swedes, etc. were among the dead.

Sad, isn't it? But it ahs long been true that people pay attention to a natural
disaster, or to an incurable disease, or to the plight of some minority, only if
famous celebrities are involved. That is not going to change anytime soon!

>  But it's an interesting 
>and disturbing question - would the tsunami have stayed in the news 
>for a day or two, instead several weeks, if only "those people" and 
>not also "our people" had been hurt?

Consider the example you yourself gave: had you even heard of those 500,000
deaths due to cyclone in the 70s? I had not until you mentioned it.

>  Or is the internet changing our 
>level of awareness and empathy for "other people," by creating an 
>intimacy that makes them part of "us"?

No, certainly not. Such wishful thinking!


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/10/05 8:09:35 PM