But as you know the 'unintersting ' deaths served no cold war/US empire
purpose.
wcm>
> Issodhos:
> >     I am completely baffled by this claim of a press frenzy.  It was my
> > impression that  the fate of the Kursk was, if anything, under
> > reported, if
> > for no other reason than because it would interfere with Gore's
> > inaguration.
> > I thought their would be the typical phony attempt by the media
> > to use human
> > interest aspects of the accident to boost ratings and manipulate
> > the emotions
> > of their audience.  Instead, it was treated like just another traffic
> > accident.
>
> Just another traffic accident??? Downunder (upover?) in Aotearoa-NZ we too
> were swamped with the tragedy in the Barents Sea. Whatever... every week or
> three some ferry capsizes in Bangladesh or India, scores of 'ordinary' folk
> drown, never mind the loss of goats, and the whole phenomena rates a column
> inch. Suddenly we're transported to the far North like it's the only place
> to be in a world that's tearing itself apart. While those 118 sailors
> perished, the majority, most likely, in the first few moments of the
> disaster, and while we were kept on tenterhooks for 10 whole days and
> nights, 320,000 children died of malnutrition or preventable causes. This
> happened in a world with the material resources to have prevented such a
> catastrophe, but happened to people who lacked the MONEY to mobilise those
> resources to serve their pathetically transient interests. Like OJ, like
> Monica, like Elian, like Dead-Kennedys, the fate of a few sailors who for
> forty years were our sworn enemies was blown out of all proportion,
> re-constructed beyond any meaningful context, by 'our' vigilant media. The
> Society of the Spectacle staggers on.
>
> BTW - 11 people died in traffic accidents in A-NZ during the screening of
> the Kursk Event.
>
> Regards
>
> b
>