The Plight of Others

Came across this piece on "World Net Daily":

A new United Nations campaign designed to get the public involved in the global fight against landmines is apparently too explosive for American television, as it depicts children being blown apart on a soccer field.

The 60-second public-service announcement titled "Kickoff" shows a match in progress before a buried mine on the playing field is detonated.

WND went on to add a few comments found as "chatter on Internet messageboards" (though there is no mention of what message boards and who authored the comments), the most relevant "quote" to me was the one that didn't involve the shallow U.N. bashing but about the deeper message that the commercial would have tried to convey:

"Unfortunately, in the world we live in now shock tactics like those are needed because so many people in the world are apathetic or ignorant of the plight of others."

The ending in the commercial apparently reads:

"If there were landmines here, would you stand for them anywhere?"

In other words, we can not comprehend the danger of landmines to our everyday life because our country hasn't had a conflict on it's soil to necessitate seeding areas with hidden landmines. Unlike others in different parts of the globe, who gamble with their lives everytime they venture about outside.

But we aren't concerned with the plight of others. Not unless there's some advantage for "us". Instead it's deflected away with petty concerns:

Valari Staab, president and general manager at KGO-TV, the ABC-owned affiliate in San Francisco, has viewed the PSA, but says her station has not been asked to broadcast it.

"I think it could be pretty upsetting to a child who plays soccer." Staab said.

I am all for sensitivity, but what's more important? The American child who gets upset by the commercial or the children in [insert landmine riddled country here] who can or do haplessly wander onto one of these deadly explosives?

We already know the answer is certainly not the latter just by the apathy towards the hundreds of Iraqi civilians being blown apart daily by the various factions battling the new U.S.-backed government: A letter to the editor in the main local newspaper after one of the major bombings that killed dozens of Iraqi civilians:

Who decided to put the horrific "pools of blood" photo on the front page Thursday? Outrageous! I have two small children, and they got a glimpse and were very disturbed. What's the point? Sensationalism? Very bad judgment in my view.

Please ask your editors to be more sensitive (sensible?) when it comes to the front page of the newspaper. We don't want or need that type of thing on our kitchen table.
>> Letter to the Editor, 5-9-05 [St. Louis Post Dispatch]

The concern and outrage is not that such a violent act, the slaughter of civilians, occured, but that they had to see it. And that wasn't the even the sight of badly burnt, shrapnel filled, limb missing , insides exposed corpses/victims. Just a lot of blood.

Part of that quote from an anonymous source for the WND piece comes back to mind:

"...shock tactics like those are needed because so many people in the world are apathetic or ignorant of the plight of others."

We are more concerned with how it makes us feel, than with those who live in areas plagued with such violent realities.

Why? It's hard to be sympathetic if you don't know what it's like. Plain and simple. Unless you are more empathetic than others tend to be. Granted the application or feeling of sympathy or empathy is very subjective.