Why did the death of a Belgian or French citizen during World War II generate less shock than the death of a victim of the latest terrorist attacks in those countries? Perhaps for the same reason that a Syrian civilian killed by a European missile doesn't immediately appear on the front pages of Western media: terror is newsworthy when it is disguised (or disguised) as something new.

The stark difference between spontaneous coverage (that which occurs immediately after the event and without much editorial planning) of violent deaths around the world should be understood not only in terms of power imbalances—which can explain many other phenomena, including violent situations themselves—but also through an understanding of the logic inherent in the media. To do so, other fundamental variables that influence the newsworthiness of such an event must be considered: probability, the magnitude of the associated consequences, and shared references.

First, the likelihood of suffering an attack is inversely proportional to its media impact. In areas with high levels of conflict, where, unfortunately, violence has become normalized (not in terms of its consequences, but statistically), the news coverage of such events is diminished. This phenomenon is not limited to extreme cases, such as war. Analyzing media coverage of countries experiencing varying levels of violence clearly reveals this phenomenon.

Brazil, for example, has a considerably higher per capita homicide rate than Argentina: 27 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 7 per 100,000 in our country. Now, if the average Brazilian is exposed to an Argentine news program, they will be struck by the extensive coverage, the amount of airtime, and the level of public outrage surrounding violent deaths here. "National broadcast" coverage, like that seen in the cases of Ángeles Rawson or Lola Chomnalez, seems out of place in the logic of Brazilian television channels.

That, of course, does not mean that in that country there is less empathetic capacity towards situations of this nature, but rather that the greater frequency of violent events to which it is exposed normalizes aggression and, as a result, the media cease to perceive these acts as ruptures in the daily news cycle.

Secondly, the magnitude and diversity of the consequences of a violent event constitute another determining factor in its newsworthiness. It's important to remember that the media reports based on narrative logic; in this sense, they don't just address events statically, but also consider their background and, above all, their possible evolution. This tension, focused on constructing a future narrative, leads to a constant evaluation of the potential consequences of each event. Thus, the French tragedy at the Bataclan on November 13th received massive media coverage because it was immediately interpreted within the context of what it was: the trigger for a series of events that would impact the lives of millions. The first major confirmation of that perception materialized with the bombing of the city of Raqqa on November 15, 2015. The second, on Tuesday in Brussels.

Third, common direct and indirect references associated with an event increase the degree of news impact it generates. In this sense, the fact that Paris has been the most visited city in the world since the second half of the last century, or that Brussels is the main administrative headquarters of the European Union, are not insignificant details in terms of the interest generated by what happens in those places. Paris or Brussels in 2016 are more directly referenced by a larger proportion of the world's population than Paris or Brussels in 1940. The comparison with Raqqa is so overwhelming that a very high percentage of the Western population likely only became aware of the city's existence as a result of the French attack following last year's terrorist attacks.

These circumstances demonstrate that the media value of a victim's life is not universal, but rather a variable relative to a specific context defined by a series of complex interactions. However, it is important to note that this is not entirely the responsibility of the media. The criteria used for content production are built upon the tension between the news organization's own values ​​and the interpretation and decoding of what it projects—some more accurately than others—as the interests of its audiences. These interests, like any emotional process, often transcend the rational boundaries of what is or is not just. Therefore, promoting media coverage that highlights the processes of violence in areas considered peripheral can be an effective mechanism for redistributing social empathy for victims and ensuring that their cries for help are heard by those who can help protect them.

*A condensed version of this column was published by the Daily Profile Saturday, October 26, 2016. Image credit: https://unsplash.com/