In January of this year, the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper in Paris, came under attack by a small group of Islamic terrorists. Twelve members of the staff dead. Several others, including police officers, wounded. The world reacted with rallies of support.
Other newspapers and magazines published editorials condemning the attack, not only as an act of terror, but also as an attack on freedom of the press, sort of a self-serving "there but for the grace of God, go I" reaction on the media's part. If a weekly publication with relatively small circulation can suffer the consequences of printing something, what might happen to a publication with a larger audience?
When Islamic terrorists killed those twelve in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the social media world showed their support with the phrase "Je Suis Charlie." That's "I am Charlie" to the French impaired among you. Thousands, in public rallies around the world, carried placards with the phrase. Candles were lit. Songs were sung. All in support of a magazine that probably very few people even knew existed.
The social media reaction to the recent terrorism in Paris is similar with the temporary profile images of the French flag that sprouted up overnight. It is perhaps, indicative of our own fleeting attention spans that these profile pictures are labeled as temporary.
A video of someone playing John Lennon's "Imagine" has gone viral. It's appeared on social media sites and national news broadcasts. Candles are lit. Songs are sung. It's the same repetitive reaction.
In September, 2013, Islamic terrorists killed 67 and wounded 175 when they attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. On April 2 of this year, the same group (al-Shabaab) killed 147 and wounded scores at Garissa University, also in Kenya.
While the news media here did indeed cover the Kenyan stories, the attacks did not warrant wall to wall coverage of the 24 hour cable networks. They saw no need for constant "expert" analysis of the events. They saw no need for countless interviews with politicians and first hand witness accounts. They saw no need to show the same film clips over and over and over and drag out the coverage for at least a few days if not a week. That's what the media does when it has something it deems a big news item. You can always tell the media is winding down a story in the cycle when a channel's reporter is interviewing another channel's reporter.
For the horrific nature of the same type of terror, where was the world-wide show of support? The temporary profile picture changes, the lighted candle ceremonies, the viral videos?
I suspect that most of you who read this don't even know these Kenyan massacres occurred let alone remember them. I'm not faulting you. I forgot them myself until somebody pointed them out to me. I didn't change my Facebook profile picture with the French flag transparently over my face. I didn't, obviously, do it with a Kenyan flag either.
What does it say about me that I forgot about the two incidents in Kenya? What does it say about the rest of us, as a people and nation, that our outrage was neither heard nor expressed on the social media sites as it has been over the Paris events?
In "Meditation 17" by John Donne, he explains exactly why "no man is an island." It is because, " … any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." I believe in those words, and as much as the events in Paris sadden me, I am also saddened that I seemingly forgot them in the case of Kenya's sorrow.
I can't help but wonder why we pay so much attention to current events in Paris and so little heed to equally horrific events in Africa. Maybe we're afraid to admit that we don't care what happens there? Are our attention spans so short? People lost their lives in Paris. So, too, in Kenya. With attention and overt support of Paris we are expressing empathy for their loss. What are we expressing when say nothing about Kenya?
