The increasing domination of ‘Western’ news coverage is almost comparable to looking at media capitals or a one sided view of where hip hop originated. With such a panned out view of looking at particular news issues, and focusing on only the issues that are immediately relevant to the Western state it’s easy to notice loop holes in the global news broadcasting world. It seems with particular interest to such things as the birth of the Royal baby, or the death of Steve jobs, a particular flocking tends to occur, however when we hear about the food crisis in Africa, or the refugee crisis in Asia it’s in minimal coverage do we begin to notice and apply such words as ‘global bias’ or a lack of ‘global focus’. Western media coverage is very much a dominating news value within the media, however how much, or how many people are we leaving behind in the wake of this ‘westernisation’ of the media? and can we consider this ‘parachute media’ to be homogenised?
According to Peter Lee- Wright “a tendency to homogeneity has emerged” (p. 11)and leads to a disconnect between… what is considered ‘important news’. With regards to the War in Iraq, “American audiences are traditionally uninterested in and poorly informed on foreign affairs, unless they involve US troops” (Lee-Wright, P, p.6) this being said, it seems unless the Western state, (Australia, America, New Zealand, England, etc are specifically and directly involved in a crisis, the news won’t provide much, if any coverage of the event.