A 2007 study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics found that 40,000 people must die in a drought to receive the same amount of US news coverage as a single person who dies in a volcano-related incident. Similarly, a disaster is 5 percent less likely to make American news and 6 percent less likely to receive relief if it occurs during the Olympic Games. Beth McMurtrie highlights new research on how causes break into the public eye:
[N]ongovernmental organizations, government agencies, and others who work in human rights and development—what [political scientist R. Charli] Carpenter refers to as global issue networks—are performing a deliberate calculus when they decide where to spend their energies. What matters isn’t necessarily the urgency of the cause, but whether they think they can sell it to the public and muster the resources to run an effective campaign.
Carpenter used surveys and focus groups to ask leaders of advocacy groups about the factors that come into play in deciding whether to turn problems into causes.
Responses were blunt: There needs to be a victim and a perpetrator. Some issues are “too complex” to advocate for. And if no clear solution is in sight, the problem is that much harder to rally around. “People need to be able to feel like they can make a difference,” said one participant.
The Dish 