This is a little off-topic. But there are an estimated 1,300 – 1,700 reporters at the Chilean mine covering the rescue. Yes it’s a good story, but couldn’t at least some of these resources be used elsewhere? Twitterers are all a-tweet on this one:
@rockpiggery: There’s about 1700 journalists hanging around covering the Chile mine rescue – wouldn’t 6 dudes from Reuters suffice?
@jayrosen_nyu: Wait: you’ve got 1300 reporters at the miners rescue AND you’re asking, “Who’s gonna pay for the Baghdad bureau, people…” You’re sure now?
@Ashan: 1300 journalists covering up that single event (neglecting other important events) is a complete failure of journalism IMO
Blogger Jeremy Littau adds: “[T]his story depresses me. I see a story about journalism. To know that 1300 journalists have descended on this mining town to cover a worldwide story is a little disconcerting in an era of closed foreign bureaus and budget cutbacks… Foreign stories are worth covering, but let’s be honest that this is more a human interest story with a small impact on a large population than something such as the earthquake that occurred in that same country of Chile just eight months ago.”
I have to say I agree. Not to be cranky here – it’s great that these men are being rescued. But the coverage is way out of proportion to the importance of the event. And there is little perspective here. Suppose these men had died in the collapse back in August. Would it have received a mention at all in the news? This has as much to do with the fact that the coverage could be planned as anything.