The lazy common denominator

Over at This Magazine John_D wonders why nobody in Canada seems to give two bits about dozens murdered in Iraq, while we go nuts over attacks in London. While I'm not really interested in getting mired in that thread, I am intrigued by one of the responses, which set off a conversation about the "local angle." The theory goes that the story can only really penetrate the North American psyche if it has a local connection: like Calgary Girl Survives Tube Ride. As Joseph Krengle puts it:

Maybe it's a result of information overload, but the world has gotten bigger and our lives have gotten smaller; and as a result most people have actively cordoned the two off from each other. Events can only translate from one to the other when there is some sort of superficial (but easily digested) connection.

This is bunk. The reason we always hear about the local angle is not because we actually care that a potential neighbour may or may not have been involved; it's because one of the tenets of crappy journalism is that people will only engage if they feel like they have a personal stake in the story. Actually, the idea's not that bad, it's the execution that's messed up. Think about it - of course you won't read a story or watch a report about something you can't engage with. But what do I care if a local man was on the scene half the world away? The London story struck all of us so deeply for so many reasons. It reminded us that our kind of lifestyle is not immune to terrorism and extremism; that the success of our technological era leave us exposed to anonymous attack; that the challenges that face Canada are shared, if not amplified, by others around the globe; and that safety is ephemeral.

If assignment editors are relying on a local angle to a big story to attract an audience, they'll only succeed so long as the public buys into its "role" of unthinking news consumer. Sadly, they need not worry (but you'd expect more from the people at This).