Branleuse, you say "I didn't write the thread in an accusatory way. Im actually trying to understand. IS IT ingrained racism?"
Upthread, though, you wrote:
"... many places are war zones because of America"
That sounds like an ingoing mindset. I suspect you are minded to believe that:
- coverage is disproportionate
- the reason for this is because it's happened in the US
- this is typical of overweening America, getting in everyone's faces and demanding too much airtime
If any of this accurately reflects your beliefs, I think it's worth testing them somewhat further:
- how do you define proportionate coverage? Chomsky did his counting of the column inches, which I guess would be one way of getting a handle on the numerator ("amount of news") but I'm not sure how you do the denominator: per what? per death? per injury? per £ of damage? Nor what the criteria for inclusion or exclusion would be: do we count only bombs? all violent deaths caused deliberately? all violent deaths? all preventable deaths? etc etc. Defining proportionality is both a practically and morally challenging exercise. For example:
At least 60,000 people are thought to have died in the Syrian civil war thus far. That is nearly ten times the number of total Palestinian civilian deaths caused by the conflict with Israel ever since 1948. Clearly, though, there has been vastly more coverage of Palestinian casualties since 1948 than there has been of the Syrian civil war. And taking this one step further....the number of deaths in Syria is a horrifyingly tiny fraction of all the deaths caused by what is sometimes called the Second Congo War, which is estimated to have killed about 5.4m people in the course of a decade. That war got less coverage than the Syrian civil war.
To my mind, this all demonstrates that it is extremely difficult to establish what the "right" level of coverage is, both for news organisations and for us as readers.
- as others have said, there are many reasons for the amount of coverage of this story in the UK, including rarity, the political significance of terrorism on the US mainland, and the extensive historical, cultural and other ties that the UK has to the US including but far from limited to a shared main language, a legal system based on common law, books movies and music that inter-relate etc. All of this is true to some extent for other countries, but it's nowhere true to the same degree.
Finally, I do wonder about what you intended by your comment about many places being war zones because of America. This is clearly true. But then, many places are war zones because of other countries too. I think many people for some reason rank America as the top villain on their "private list of evil places" - above China, Syria, Uzbekistan, Russia, and any number of other vile autocracies.