The idea that the major nightly newscasts allocate so little time to world news coverage is difficult to wrap my mind around. Despite statistical evidence to the contrary, many of my friends and peers have expressed to me that they think conflict in the world is more prevalent than ever because of the stories they see on the television news programs. Perhaps this is an effect of having most international news devoted to the conflict situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the original post indicates that this coverage may continue to decrease. We could correlate these numbers with the state of the economy, as the original poster puts forward, but I wonder if the causes have deeper roots than that. I also wonder about the cause and effect relationship between the public’s interest and the coverage.

I find it intriguing that the figure of a 21-year low in international news coverage correlates so closely with the end of the Cold War, when the world shifted from a bi-polar power balance to one in which the United States is arguably the sole superpower. Is the drop in international news coverage, perhaps, a symptom of this global power shift? The few international subjects that the networks cover seem to suggest it is. The three main areas of coverage – Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Beijing Olympics – are politically and culturally important to the American public. They indicate that when it comes to coverage of international news, Americans are more interested in events they think have a direct impact on their lives. Even when news coverage does periodically veer towards other areas of the world, one can still identify American interests. For example, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was the most covered event of that year; some argue that the coverage was because of the large amount of Western aid directed at the region. Alternately, the entire continent of Africa, where American interests are arguably less visible, makes up a negligible percent of world news coverage. (Alynna J. Lyon, and Chris J. Dolan, “American Humanitarian Intervention: Toward a Theory of Coevolution,” Foreign Policy Analysis 3.1 (2007): 66).

From a business perspective, it makes sense that networks would cater their offerings to viewers’ interests. However, I think this explanation is too lenient on the news networks. The fact is, as the original poster points out, television news has huge potential to influence the public. This may be particularly true in the humanitarian domain; images of conflicts or other crisis situations can compel the public to pressure the American government to take action, as they did during the 2004 tsunami. Furthermore, as Mark Mellman writes, the television media is necessary for the public to hold their officials accountable. In this respect I find it encouraging that the main international commitments of the U.S. government – Iraq and Afghanistan – receive a relatively large amount of coverage. However, the overall low amount of attention paid to international news and particularly to news that does not seem to be in the American public’s immediate interest remains worrying. As the world becomes more interconnected, events in formerly “far-away” places are increasingly likely to have domestic ramifications. The end of the Cold War may have left the global political structure more uni-polar, but globalization means that we cannot limit our interests to specific geographic locations or types of events. Ideally the interests of the public should play a minor role; selective knowledge is incomplete knowledge. The television media should recognize the potential influence of its choices and increase their international news coverage.