On March 29th, two University of Southern California students were struck in a hit-and-run accident. One died, the other suffered broken legs, among other injuries.
Old news, right?
Maybe. But an
article in today's LA Times brings to light the shocking inequities of the media's coverage of such accidents.
On the same as the accident near USC, 55-year-old Guatemala native Agapito Gaspar Nicolas was killed in a very similar accident after stepping into a crosswalk on Figueroa Street.
I live in Los Angeles. The accident involving the USC students was all over the news for weeks. Nicolas's death? Non-existent media coverage. I hadn't even heard about it until the LA Times reported on the inequities between both the media's and the police's responses to the two cases.
Similar to the media, police response to the USC hit-and-run has been huge, eventually resulting in the apprehension of the suspects. Nicolas? One dedicated--and commendable--detective, Michael Kaden, has continued to work diligently on the case.
I don't blame the LAPD for the lack of response to Nicolas's accident relative to that of the USC students. They are acting in accordance to the uproar of the people, directing what resources they have as the public dictates. Most big city police departments are overextended. I
My problem is with the media. Why the imbalance in the reporting? Do the USC students just make for a better headline? Or does it speak to a far graver concern of institutionalized racism in our media coverage?
I would like to believe that if the same media attention had been directed toward Nicolas's plight, the public uproar and police response would have been equal to that of the USC students, and maybe his killer would now be behind bars.
The farce that is the mainstream media's coverage of such accidents (and events in general) can also be examined in the response to the drunk-driving accident that killed Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim pitcher Nick Adenhart. I blasted the false self righteousness of the response. on my sports site
DeepIntoSports.com . The only reason that story is received the press that it did is that a celebrity was involved. How many drunk-driving accidents occur every day that we never hear about at all? But this one killed an athlete--so that makes it so much more important. Even more disgusting was the difference in airtime given to the other victims compared to that delivered to Adenhart. I suppose the media believes they should consider themselves fortunate to have their names mentioned at all based on their association with the pitcher.
Are the days of media as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy over forever? Has news coverage been completely absorbed by the ratings game? Or are more insidious forces at work?
