Serious Why do we care about this but not that?

[Yue Han]

With the recent burning of Notre Dame donations have poured in in around the world for the reconstruction of this historic building. A building that belongs to the Catholic Church, one of the wealthiest (the wealthiest?) organisation(s) on the planet.

So why is it that near a billion euros can be raised in 2 days for an institution that could arguably foot the bill itself comfortably? The answer is easy. People care about this extremely famous piece of cultural history and want to preserve it. But what I want to debate is why do we care about this but not that? Specifically why do we care about this more than other things much more in need of financial help. Compare this to the fire of the Grenfell Tower building which resulted in 72 deaths and years on with people still in temporary accommodation having lost their homes hasn't been able to raise anywhere near this amount of money given it is much less glamours building and less well known (but that the same time arguably having a much worse impact on the lives of people affected by it).

Similarly I remember the culture of settling your facebook profile picture to the flag of a country affected by a tragedy being popular not too long ago, because of famous landmarks around the world starting the trend with showing solidarity with the Paris attacks. A day before, Beirut had a terrorist attack take place in a similarly bustling area resulting in a significant amount of deaths and casualties, a couple of weeks before a Russian aeroplane was destroyed by a bomb killing every person inside the plane. Why did the world have an outpouring of sympathy for Paris but non for Beirut or Russia? The simple answer is because they, as cultures, are not as close to home so it is harder for us to feel sympathy for them (debatable but that is my opinion). But is that reasoning justifiable? I would say no it isn't. When I have said this kind of thing before to people it is common for a nerve to be touched and instantly defensive counter arguments. On Beirut I have heard the argument of "well that kind of stuff is expected there isn't it?" (because it's a Middle Eastern country) ...well no actually it pretty much has the same kinds of typical warnings against petty or violent crime you might here about when wanting to visit somewhere new in the west. But regardless of if something is or isn't expected in one part of the world that to me is not a good argument for whether or not a place is deserving of sympathy and a reason for why I do not feel comfortable with choosing to publicly show solidarity with one particular nation's collective grief over another's. As there's always going to be tragedy all over the world and I think it's important that we don't normalise it for some places, and then use that as a deflection for having publicly displayed solidarity for one place but not another if confronted.

Now I'm not going to sit here and say I have the facts and figures for all tragedies that occur everyday and have done the sums for equalling out how much sympathy I should give to each. What I'm saying is I personally feel wrong focusing my grief on one media hyped tragedy when I know there is so much else going on everyday so I feel uncomfortable expressing public solidarity for one particular thing cherry picked by the media because it'll generate the biggest reaction, and therefore, the most money by reporting on it.

The examples I have listed are because they're topical and well known about but I want to talk about this kind of behaviour/mind frame in general.

Has reading any of this touched a nerve? Because I know it does do for some people when bringing this kind of topic up. And if so why has it touched a nerve? Do you feel the same that this kind of culture is problematic? Do you think it's an unavoidable thing that will always happen because of the way humans actively and passively other groups of people that are 'too' different? If you agree that this is a thing do you think it's actually ok that this happens because it's just the natural way many people react or are you not ok with it either? Or do you just completely disagree that this is a thing and why?

 

[shiba28]

Hi,
While French firefighters were putting out the destructive blaze at the Notre Dame Cathedral, another holistic site was also up in flames. Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is among the holiest sites in Islam and was built almost 1,300 years ago and nobody cared about it!

 

[baire]

Has reading any of this touched a nerve? Because I know it does do for some people when bringing this kind of topic up. And if so why has it touched a nerve? Do you feel the same that this kind of culture is problematic? Do you think it's an unavoidable thing that will always happen because of the way humans actively and passively other groups of people that are 'too' different? If you agree that this is a thing do you think it's actually ok that this happens because it's just the natural way many people react or are you not ok with it either? Or do you just completely disagree that this is a thing and why?

this hasn't touched any nerves for me, but yes I think it's very problamatic. I also think it extends far beyond just being unsympathetic to different, unfamiliar cultures. Peter Singer has made one of the most famous arguments along this line in recent times, and while I disagree with utilitarianism (which he argues for using this example), I think he absolutely nailed the hypocrisy behind this very common mindset

 

[Noblejanobii]

Personally I know for me, when I heard that Notre Dame was burning, I was heartbroken, and the reason for that stemmed from the fact that as a Catholic I'm well aware of the historical significance of the site, but also because I visited the church back in February and was extremely concerned for the artifacts inside since no amount of money could replace those. Whether you believe that they are what they are or not, for me personally, hearing that the Crown of Thorns, the shroud of Saint Louis, the organ, the relics of Saint Dennis and Saint Guinevere (which were lost to the flames), the fragment of the True Cross, and the many other sacred artifacts that give the church it's major draw was soul shaking. And I think the same can be said for the others. It's why the church received a lot of news coverage and that news coverage has resulted in the church receiving a lot of donations (among other factors as well like it being the focal point of a Disney Film).

That said, I wouldn't go so far as to say no one cared about the Al-Aqsa Mosque burning. There was definitely a lot less news coverage on it, but I saw many of my Islamic friends posting about it on Facebook and on Tumblr. In addition, if you look into it, the damage to the Al-Aqsa Mosque was not as bad as the damage in Notre Dame. If I understood the news coverage correctly, the fire at the Al-Aqsa Mosque was an electrical fire and it was fairly quickly contained, but it did endanger one of the older and more sacred parts of the mosque. As far as I'm aware though, the mosque was relatively okay (I could be very wrong though I personally don't know a ton about the mosque). Notre Dame, on the other hand, was actually in danger of being entirely destroyed due to its frame being made of wood. Now thankfully, other than the vault beneath the spire that collapsed, all the other vaults held when the ceiling collapsed. But while they were fighting the flames and trying to protect the bell towers, no one could have known that. So based on the coverage that I'm seeing, another factor might have been that the situation appeared more dire at Notre Dame than at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Though I do find it interesting that most of the articles I'm seeing covering the Al-Aqsa Mosque burning also have Notre Dame in the title.

That being said, I think the major problem here is simply what the news decides to cover. Notre Dame is the most visited monument in Paris with twelve million people visiting it annually. It has a very large tourist pull. From what I can tell, the Al-Aqsa Mosque does not have the same pull due to its location being a focal point in conflict, which is truly unfortunate since its a very historic and beautiful building that deserves just as much attention as Notre Dame due to its significance to the Islamic religion. But because it lacks that tourist pull, its significance is somewhat lacking outside the Islamic and archaeological community. Thus, my guess is, news stations opted to not cover it because it wouldn't get as many clicks. And that's why the inclusion of "Notre Dame" in the titles of the articles is significant. It makes their articles more likely to pop up when people search for the Notre Dame fire and draws in more clicks aka more money.

And unfortunately I think this is the root of the problem when it comes to the Grenfell Tower, Beirut, and Russia tragedies you brought up. Speaking as someone who lives in the US (don't be deceived by my location I'm studying abroad atm), coverage of Russia specifically can be... controversial with our current government. Opinions on them neither here nor there, I think because Russia is so controversial to the point that many US residents view them as the enemy, news sources probably don't want to cover them in a light that would look sympathetic. That's of course just my theory but given that most coverage of Russia that I see from American news sources these days is very negative, I would assume that's probably the cause. Now you could argue, since the tragedy you're referring to is Metrojet Flight 9268, that since this occurred in 2015 that shouldn't be the case. But you gotta remember this was a year before the 2016 election and there were all kind of controversies going around about Russian involvement and this that and the other. So that's probably why on Russia. As for Beirut, I think it might be something of the same. It's a city in Lebanon, and as you even mentioned, people probably think because it's in Lebanon this kind of thing happens all the time. It obviously doesn't but because news corporations want to get more clicks on their articles, my guess is they opted to not cover this as much because at least in the US, people probably wouldn't think it was too out of the ordinary.

Then finally, Grenfell Tower is a weird one. I didn't see a lot of coverage on this in the US, but there was some coverage. Undoubtedly there was probably a lot of coverage in the UK about it and while I don't know the full story behind the inactivity in dealing with the situation there I'm sure dealing with Brexit since 2016 has not helped things in any way. But ultimately, I think it boils down to what I mentioned earlier. The reason I personally cared about the fire in Notre Dame was because I knew about the artifacts. When I heard about the fire, my first concern wasn't about the people, it was about the artifacts like the Rose Windows and the statues on the spire. Because Grenfell Tower isn't the host of some grand stain glass window from the 1800s, it's not as important in people's mind, which is ridiculous because over seventy people died and many more lost their homes. But because Grenfell Tower isn't receiving a ton of news coverage, the stories of the survivors aren't getting out there, and the people that died are just a number. They lack the significance that the Crown of Thorns does, which is unfair.

All in all, it's always rubbed me the wrong way, but I never fault the source of the tragedy for it. In my personal opinion, because the media does not give equal coverage to every tragedy, some are left forgotten. And while it's impossible to cover every single tragedy, more needs to be done to cover as many as possible, since if the coverage of any of the tragedies was to the extent of Notre Dame, I'm sure more would be done to aid those situations.

 

[Vragon2.0]

With the recent burning of Notre Dame donations have poured in in around the world for the reconstruction of this historic building. A building that belongs to the Catholic Church, one of the wealthiest (the wealthiest?) organisation(s) on the planet.

Pardon for the quick cut off but this sounds deliberatly narrative drawing. You're point out why we care more about one thing compared to another and I'll give my point, however, forgetting that it's also a prime piece of french culture, was in Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and in of itself a beautifal piece of building structure with many relics I'd say you're cutting it a bit short by just tying it with the Catholic Church. You get on to talk about this later, but I wanted to highlight this here first.

So why is it that near a billion euros can be raised in 2 days for an institution that could arguably foot the bill itself comfortably? The answer is easy. People care about this extremely famous piece of cultural history and want to preserve it.

So again, I honestly have to ask why bring up the catholic thing earlier? It comes off as you drawing a narrative in a way you kind of sidetrack here. Plus, that's also forgetting that many catholics probably did, I mean do you have statistics on who donated the euros? I mean, was it just French or Europeans, how do you know not most of the donations wasn't catholic? But anyways.

But what I want to debate is why do we care about this but not that? Specifically why do we care about this more than other things much more in need of financial help.

Because people have preferences. People have things they are more connected to or favor more that will more than likely get their money if they want to give in a generous spirit.

Compare this to the fire of the Grenfell Tower building which resulted in 72 deaths and years on with people still in temporary accommodation having lost their homes hasn't been able to raise anywhere near this amount of money given it is much less glamours building and less well known (but that the same time arguably having a much worse impact on the lives of people affected by it).

Then you probably answered your own question. It probably has less to do witht he glamour and more the connection.

Similarly I remember the culture of settling your facebook profile picture to the flag of a country affected by a tragedy being popular not too long ago, because of famous landmarks around the world starting the trend with showing solidarity with the Paris attacks. A day before, Beirut had a terrorist attack take place in a similarly bustling area resulting in a significant amount of deaths and casualties, a couple of weeks before a Russian aeroplane was destroyed by a bomb killing every person inside the plane. Why did the world have an outpouring of sympathy for Paris but non for Beirut or Russia?

Coverage...were the coverages exactly the same? Not to mention there are other factors that could be in it. News media reporting that is very focused on what would get the most buzz. Some people that don't even see the coverage or watch the news.

The simple answer is because they, as cultures, are not as close to home so it is harder for us to feel sympathy for them (debatable but that is my opinion).But is that reasoning justifiable? I would say no it isn't.

not as close also implying not as much local news or information gets passed to others let alone in such busy lives that others have. And regarding sympathy, would you feel the same if someone in your family died to a terrorist attack compared to somewhere in a city you just now heard the name of? I'm not saying you can't by sympathetic, but the common theme here is that people have perfereces, priorities, personal views on what is something they care for more. That doesn't devalue their views on life, it just means certain life loss affects them more than others. But resuming.

When I have said this kind of thing before to people it is common for a nerve to be touched and instantly defensive counter arguments. On Beirut I have heard the argument of "well that kind of stuff is expected there isn't it?" (because it's a Middle Eastern country) ...well no actually it pretty much has the same kinds of typical warnings against petty or violent crime you might here about when wanting to visit somewhere new in the west.

I doubt that's the only argument brought up in counter. If it was only one brought up to you, okay, but that doesn't make it the only answer to a question you brought up.

But regardless of if something is or isn't expected in one part of the world that to me is not a good argument for whether or not a place is deserving of sympathy and a reason for why I do not feel comfortable with choosing to publicly show solidarity with one particular nation's collective grief over another's.

fair

As there's always going to be tragedy all over the world and I think it's important that we don't normalise it for some places, and then use that as a deflection for having publicly displayed solidarity for one place but not another if confronted.

This normalicy as a means to brush off the action I actually agree with. I don't think labeling the reason for "it's just the way it is" is a viable excuse. I'm a person who believes in reasons for things happening the way they do and analyzing them is a good way to improve oneself.

Now I'm not going to sit here and say I have the facts and figures for all tragedies that occur everyday and have done the sums for equalling out how much sympathy I should give to each. What I'm saying is I personally feel wrong focusing my grief on one media hyped tragedy when I know there is so much else going on everyday so I feel uncomfortable expressing public solidarity for one particular thing cherry picked by the media because it'll generate the biggest reaction, and therefore, the most money by reporting on it.

I don't disagree with your feelings on this matter. I personally don't like the means social media has become and how it honestly has defeated it's prime purpose by trying to pander to hype 24/7 by means of messing or not covering certain stories.

The examples I have listed are because they're topical and well known about but I want to talk about this kind of behaviour/mind frame in general.

Has reading any of this touched a nerve? Because I know it does do for some people when bringing this kind of topic up. And if so why has it touched a nerve?

I can't speak for others on this matter and while I'm not "nerve touched" as you're saying I do disagree with the approach. The reasoning being that we are a species that tends to have preferences and groups we can connect with more than another. I perfectly understand the world is unfair and honestly have come to accept not everything will go my way, should be my way, nor will I know everything and I believe this applies to my emotional investments too.

Do you feel the same that this kind of culture is problematic?

This isn't a cultural issue (aside media but that has it's own issues). I'd argue it's not even an issue since it's simply a way humans work and form connections. We aren't really a "one-body collective". We have individual feelings and preferences and those help give us an identity. A big reason why I see a lot of contrary talk about expecting a large amount of peace despite how diverse the populace is.

Do you think it's an unavoidable thing that will always happen because of the way humans actively and passively other groups of people that are 'too' different?

Yep, unless something changes in the human nature, I doubt it will be any different or would just be in a different way. And well to be frank, I don't think this is a problem. The emotional levels are part of that.

If you agree that this is a thing do you think it's actually ok that this happens because it's just the natural way many people react or are you not ok with it either?

It's about as existing as anything else. I mean, we can justify whatever we want to by our own sense of moral justice, doesn't mean there's an actual concrete line you can draw all moral law to. That's why I don't think it'll happen, since we're all different and have different levels on certain issues.

Or do you just completely disagree that this is a thing and why?

I disagree it's a problem in human nature. I do agree with the media aspect though, but that's more them being picky choosey and I doubt even they could talk about all the tragedies that happen time to time.

I think it's impractical to expect everything to be of equal coverage and things because we live in a flawed, imperfect world where things are unfair despite people trying to instill a sense of order and justice. But I do respect you have such high empathy, that is good in a person to have.

 

[Yue Han]

Sorry I work long weekends and was busy all day yesterday as well to reply to this thread I made. I'll reply to this post since I guess I need to clarify more that the examples I used were just that, I wanted them to be stepping stones for why this kind of thing happens more than anything else.

Pardon for the quick cut off but this sounds deliberatly narrative drawing. You're point out why we care more about one thing compared to another and I'll give my point, however, forgetting that it's also a prime piece of french culture, was in Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and in of itself a beautifal piece of building structure with many relics I'd say you're cutting it a bit short by just tying it with the Catholic Church. You get on to talk about this later, but I wanted to highlight this here first.


So again, I honestly have to ask why bring up the catholic thing earlier? It comes off as you drawing a narrative in a way you kind of sidetrack here. Plus, that's also forgetting that many catholics probably did, I mean do you have statistics on who donated the euros? I mean, was it just French or Europeans, how do you know not most of the donations wasn't catholic? But anyways.

Well...no it's not narrative drawing (and by the I assume you mean I'm possibly using loaded language?) as I thought it would have been obvious the reason I brought up the Catholic Church was solely because of its wealth as I stated it more than likely can foot the bill itself and wouldn't need the financial help yet people, knowing the wealth of the Catholic Church still, felt passionate enough to do so anyway. Catholic, French or otherwise. I'm actually a little bit offended by your assertion for why I mentioned the Catholic Church here and see that as narrative drawing in itself. I'm purely listing these examples because they're topical and a good stepping stone for the question that I listed in the title. So I hope that clears that up for you.

Because people have preferences. People have things they are more connected to or favor more that will more than likely get their money if they want to give in a generous spirit.

Yes, and I said that myself. I'm specifically asking why are we this way and is it ok?

Coverage...were the coverages exactly the same? Not to mention there are other factors that could be in it. News media reporting that is very focused on what would get the most buzz. Some people that don't even see the coverage or watch the news.

But, again I'm asking about why coverage varied drastically for something that is similar in nature. Why one creates more buzz than another. I've answered all of this myself, as you have stated too. But the reasons I did so were to ask the forum about the more root issues of 'why do we care about this but not that?'

not as close also implying not as much local news or information gets passed to others let alone in such busy lives that others have. And regarding sympathy, would you feel the same if someone in your family died to a terrorist attack compared to somewhere in a city you just now heard the name of? I'm not saying you can't by sympathetic, but the common theme here is that people have perfereces, priorities, personal views on what is something they care for more. That doesn't devalue their views on life, it just means certain life loss affects them more than others. But resuming.

Ah see this is an important distinction that I think needs to be made on the family member/random stranger comparison. I, (or whoever else) as someone as someone publicly showing grief, am not the same as someone actually from said area where said tragedy took place. If you're actually from where whatever tragedy took place that completely different and I think it's just common sense as to why you would. I'm asking about the nature of the average onlookers.

I doubt that's the only argument brought up in counter. If it was only one brought up to you, okay, but that doesn't make it the only answer to a question you brought up.

Of course it isn't. It is just one example I'm using in an opening post as a starting point.

On your answers to all the questions I asked at the end thank you for that input as that was what I was most interested in and why I created this thread in the first place. I do think you misinterpreted the reason for why I created this thread as I wanted to start a discussion for why this kind of occurrence is a 'thing' in the coverage world using well known examples with similar but less well known/covered ones as contrasts. I hope you can see that is the case now.

 

[Her]

I fundamentally agree, especially in the light of the comparatively minimal attention and outpouring of grief over the Sri Lankan bombings compared to the cascading waterfalls of tears directed at Notre Dame. A friend of mine has been venting to me about that very issue and I have the utmost sympathy, especially considering the worldwide attention to my country's soul-crushing mass murder just over a month ago. But I have a more general comment, one not specifically about any horrific news story or sad event, because I don't want to draw lines about what tragedies are objectively sadder.

Given the revelation of instant communication and therefore the issue of the constant delivering of traumatic news to our minds, we have little choice but to conserve our energy. Without taking in the very real consideration of the widespread (not total) Western numbness to the deaths of brown people, because that point is something I absolutely agree with you on, we wouldn't be able to function if we delivered the same amount of grief to each and every tragedy. America has an example when it comes to school shootings - they're god awful, no question. But can Americans sustain that same grief each and every time such an abominable situation happens, given the frequency that they do happen? One can argue that this numbness in fact stands in the way of reform, but that point aside, you see what I mean? If we were to come to a halt each time we heard of something unforgivably awful, we wouldn't be able to do anything. As harsh as it may seem, because of the frequency of tragic situations we are now exposed to, we do end up making mental judgements and disregarding/pushing aside certain stories for the sake of progressing with our lives. However, I wouldn't extrapolate that discussion to the media organisations that report this info - while the people that work there are human and subject to the same feelings of being overwhelmed that I mentioned, their own slackness in (and lack of financial impetus towards) challenging their disproportionate reporting does contribute to the overarching issue.

 

[Noblejanobii]

America has an example when it comes to school shootings - they're god awful, no question. But can Americans sustain that same grief each and every time such an abominable situation happens, given the frequency that they do happen? One can argue that this numbness in fact stands in the way of reform, but that point aside, you see what I mean?

As someone who's from America, I'm gonna really emphasize this part. When I was growing up and I heard about shooting like Sandy Hook, they were tragedies at first. We mourned and wept for everyone that was lost. We would take time at school for a moment of silence for the shooting victims.

But now? Unfortunately, it's just not the same. In college, there are no moments of silence for the victims. We might have student organized memorials but not for every shooting. And for me personally, when I see the news of any mass shooting, I sigh. The impact no longer lands. It's just another group of faces and names. There's too many now to remember them all. And while I wish I could memorialize them and spend the time to mourn like I used to, I just can't. There's too many.

I think the last mass shooting that really hit me hard was in 2015, and that's because that shooting occurred right near where I lived.

 

[Vragon2.0]

.
Well...no it's not narrative drawing (and by the I assume you mean I'm possibly using loaded language?) as I thought it would have been obvious the reason I brought up the Catholic Church was solely because of its wealth as I stated it more than likely can foot the bill itself and wouldn't need the financial help yet people, knowing the wealth of the Catholic Church still, felt passionate enough to do so anyway. Catholic, French or otherwise. I'm actually a little bit offended by your assertion for why I mentioned the Catholic Church here and see that as narrative drawing in itself. I'm purely listing these examples because they're topical and a good stepping stone for the question that I listed in the title. So I hope that clears that up for you.

Fair, I should have been clearer when saying this specific section. I should have said it felt like narrative pulling and not out of a manipulative sense. Sorry that it came off as rather accusatory, I just wanted to address some little things regarding it that I felt were being left out.

Yes, and I said that myself. I'm specifically asking why are we this way and is it ok?

I believe in my comment I explain why I think it is the way it is due to the group mentality rooted in our sociability. As for if it's okay, that probably depends on a subjective view considering that's what morals and opinions are.

But, again I'm asking about why coverage varied drastically for something that is similar in nature. Why one creates more buzz than another. I've answered all of this myself, as you have stated too. But the reasons I did so were to ask the forum about the more root issues of 'why do we care about this but not that?'

I believe I also gave reasons as to why the buzzing was so much bigger.
regarding the bolded section, I'm not really sure what more I can say. I believe I've gone into preferences and why they exist, but I suppose I'm curious what bigger thing you're looking for. If we call the morality of it into question we call the morality of seeing things differently potentially into question. Slippery Slope maybe, but my point is less that it's a bad thing and more just a fact of life that affects people in different ways. I don't know how else I could describe it and how viewing the morality of it could be socialble looked down but there are different levels of morality.

Also, regarding the media they appeal to whatever they think will buzz the most even if that isn't the case. It's less our sympathetic nature and more whatever they think will go big and whatnot. I did and do agree that that's a bit of a problem.

Ah see this is an important distinction that I think needs to be made on the family member/random stranger comparison. I, (or whoever else) as someone as someone publicly showing grief, am not the same as someone actually from said area where said tragedy took place. If you're actually from where whatever tragedy took place that completely different and I think it's just common sense as to why you would. I'm asking about the nature of the average onlookers.

And...that family comparison also applies. I mean, some manner of investment could be the relation. I mean, let's take another example. Say you were a local to notre dame when it was destroyed, you'd be really affected by it if you had some manner of investment into that. Investment I think it the driving force for how humans for relationships and attachments and if there isn't much investment it's less effective on the person. Yes, you don't need investment to feel bad and I will say that for both Notre Dame and the Moscque I felt bad that the events happened.

Of course it isn't. It is just one example I'm using in an opening post as a starting point.

Fair enough

On your answers to all the questions I asked at the end thank you for that input as that was what I was most interested in and why I created this thread in the first place. I do think you misinterpreted the reason for why I created this thread as I wanted to start a discussion for why this kind of occurrence is a 'thing' in the coverage world using well known examples with similar but less well known/covered ones as contrasts. I hope you can see that is the case now.

Fair enough, I was under the impression you namely meant humans as a species, but if you mainly meant coverage world I think the buzzing factor is the biggest thing in this. Apologies for the earlier bit and I hope this helped clarified some things.

 

[Maedar]

Publicity.

Nobody ever wrote a novel about the Grenfall Tower. Disney never made a movie about the Grenfall Tower.

It's also frustrating that a disaster causes donations to pour in, while other times, people call out the Vatican as greedy hypocrites because they horde billions in historic artwork, and claim they should auction it all if they're concerned about the poor or the oppressed. Of course, these same folks forget that said wealth are part of a museum; they never suggest the U.S. Government start auctioning off the stuff in the Smithsonian, which would be pretty much the same thing.

Look, I realize that if life was fair, a fundraiser for the civilians who lost their homes in that incident would double the amount raised for Notre Dame Cathedral, but the sad fact is, it won't. You see, life ISN'T fair. Not by a longshot. A national landmark is always going to get more attention. I would wager everything I own that if the Leaning Tower of Pisa fell over and crushed some guy with a hot dog stand, the Tower itself would occupy 99.9% of news stories about it.

That's the way people are. You think you can change that? You might as well wish for the moon.