Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How people die vs. media coverage of death

owenshen24.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#21

Post by 13of40 »

blattimwind wrote: post #14
acidburnNSA wrote: post #2

Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and kill us.

> Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. How many people do you know that were killed or injured in a terrorist attack? Second order? Same question for {murdered, illness, natural cause}. Compare magnitudes.

I knew a person whose brother in law was killed in 9/11 and another guy whose best friend was shot down in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Trouble is I really can't compare it to the scads of relatives of friends who have undoubtably died of cancer or heart disease, because those just aren't the kind of stories people swap on a fishing trip.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#24

Post by jchw »

Many people are pointing out that it's pretty obvious the news reports more on rarer events. True, but also people don't necessarily realize this when watching the news. I can anecdotally guarantee some of my family members fully believe that homicides are responsible for significantly more deaths than cancer.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#25

Post by losteric »

dbatten wrote: post #22

So, the media reports on rare, interesting things, not mundane everyday things? I'm shocked!

The news is supposed to keep the public informed... fusing of entertainment and information, along with corporate mergers, has brought us to this unhealthy state of public awareness. Our society is becoming more paranoid because it boosts ratings and profit.

A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending "war on terror". Meanwhile heart disease/cancer silently kills 1.1 million Americans every year.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#26

Post by GW150914 »

losteric wrote: post #25
dbatten wrote: post #22

So, the media reports on rare, interesting things, not mundane everyday things? I'm shocked!

The news is supposed to keep the public informed... fusing of entertainment and information, along with corporate mergers, has brought us to this unhealthy state of public awareness. Our society is becoming more paranoid because it boosts ratings and profit. A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending "war on…

Fear of terrorism isn’t just fear of dying from terrorism. What was the economic damage or 9/11?

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#27

Post by leetcrew »

lifeformed wrote: post #6
acidburnNSA wrote: post #2

Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and kill us.

I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.

i am one of those people who think that we should allocate resources against causes of death in close proportion to the number of lives claimed. my guess is that many other engineering types also take this position.

recently however, i have come to worry that this position lacks empathy. especially in light of recent mass shootings in the US, i am forced to consider that some types of deaths have far worse second order effects than others. if ten people die on different days out in the woods, ten sets of family and friends are devastated. tragic, but if ten students are killed at school in the same day, it seems that the lasting damage is far more severe and widespread.

to some extent you can say that's just because people are emotional/irrational and they are blocking optimal allocation, but maybe the optimal solution does need to take into account how people feel about things. maybe things like terrorism and mass shootings are actually a lot more harmful than the numbers suggest.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#28

Post by tejohnso »

osteele wrote: post #7

Cf. xkcd #1468 How worried you should be when various things happen to you in movies vs. real life. https://www.xkcd.com/1468/

Seems like there's a joke about movies portraying chest wounds on one's left side being much more serious than on the right side. But I don't get it.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#30

Post by garblegarble »

tejohnso wrote: post #28
osteele wrote: post #7

Cf. xkcd #1468 How worried you should be when various things happen to you in movies vs. real life. https://www.xkcd.com/1468/

Seems like there's a joke about movies portraying chest wounds on one's left side being much more serious than on the right side. But I don't get it.

>Seems like there's a joke about movies portraying chest wounds on one's left side being much more serious than on the right side

I'm guessing it's because your heart is on the left (unless you have situs inversus), so he's arguing movies treat a chest wound on the left as hitting the heart

Post reply on HN