Why is it that isis can hog the headlines of the world media especially in light of the Paris attacks yet boco harem in central Africa recieve paltry coverage at best for there terror, yet have killed more???
Answer: because the white populace of the western world care little about there fellow man, uncomfortable to the deniers but the truth? I think so.

Paltry coverage?. Boko Haram is in the news most every day. Google it.. countless pages of western news reports on the atrocities of BH

And if I am not mistaken, Doesn't the U.S and other Western countries actually have troops on the ground Africa.. there to help support the countries battling this evil and to actually fight BH. And isn't more on the way.

BTW... Bali..

U.S. special forces were actually part of the rescue team.. that is how fast the reaction way.

Do you think they cared what the color or nationality of the hostages in that hotel were.

Did you mean Mali?
True, reactionary forces do move in, but the coverage through the media is dramatically less.
Another example was rawanda with the tribal war that killed thousands

did you mean Boco Haram?

That´s just another branch of isis/aq...
google that stuff.

Boko Haram, which calls itself Wilāyat Gharb Ifrīqīyyah (Arabic: الولاية الإسلامية غرب أفريقيا‎, (Islamic State's) West Africa Province, ISWAP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

so why is there less talk about Boco Haram?
because when a Rich Guy´s house blows up, other Rich people talk about it.

However, when a poor guy stabs another one in the middle of the sidewalk, nobody notices.


Not color.
Rich/Poor.


and for the record... no, overall one group of humans does not care for another group of humans. Never did.

You know what I meant

and again pages and pages of western coverage. And again, the western world has boots on the ground there, and many of those boots have white feet in them.

But please continue to make this into a white people cares less about black people thing.

bye-bye

Remove the " why are from your question and you have your answer.
For this attack in Mali, the reason American special forces were so quick to respond was because we were already there and it was an attack on the passengers of a diplomats car. The hotel is also well known to accommodate westerners.
Another reason for 1-1 comparison on these specific attacks isscale an collateral damage. In Mali 30 died in one place. AK's only barring new info. In Paris millions of people visit annually explosives were used as well as ak's and it was simultaneously in several locations. 130 died and many more wounded.
To date this year boko has killed more Americans to date followed by isil an al-Qaeda

I disagree with you. When Ebola broke out in Africa, medical teams from European and other countries, volunteers, went to assist and some of those white/yellow/black/brown people died in trying to save black people. We don't have Ebola in Europe, yet many research institutes put resources in to finding a cure and were successful, only recently Sierra Leone was declared Ebola free. All human life is important, but sadly there are some countries that for many reasons, do not have the resources to care for their own people, whether it's famine, war or pestilence, and need to call upon the Western world for help.

I think that one major problem is media itself.

Stop listening to the PROAGANDA, start living a normal life with a lot less Fear.

I don't think it has anything to do with colour. There's a big difference in impact. There are places where there's an ongoing war for yonks. It is still in the news, but the impact of that news lessens with time. That's normal, psychological.
What happened in Paris, was totally unexpected, a totally new event. Not in a war zone. So the impact of that is huge.
Same as 9/11's impact was tremendous. No one expected that.
In a war zone you do expect chit to happen. Take Israel. I cannot remember a day in my life that it wasn't in the news because of war, bombings etc. It doesn't really affect me much, because it's normal. May sound horrible, but it's the truth.
I'd be shocked if one day the news would say there's permanent truce and peace in the Middle East.

Also quite logical that what's going on in your own back yard is more important than what's going on further away. Because it affects us directly.
Colour has nothing to do with it.
To be honest, I find such questions extremely jarring. Why do we constantly have to defend that we're not racists? It's starting to wear very very thin.

Have you checked if African countries covered what happened in Paris/Europe properly? Or did they give more attention to what's going on in their own backyards? If so, that would mean they'd discriminate us white people.
That isn't right! Start a protest against that!

could peruse the International News,perhaps?

I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't see people living in fear. I see people determined to beat this.

I live right across the river from NYC, you can ( or could) see the twin towers clearly.. couldn't help but see them. and I and millions of others stood there and watched them come down.

I saw shock.. total shock... and disbelieve, and a lot of people crying..men and women.And after it set in as to what actually happened, a collective rage. But I did not see fear.. and still don't, regardless of what is in the media. and NYC ( and other countries that have been hit already) does not live in fear., the people refuse to.

I see determination, not fear.

The terrorist are banking on the fear factor.. which the civilized world has already proved to be ineffective

better tell that to Jean-Claude Juncker,who is so scared that he intends to totally disarm the good Citizens of Europe!

it was like unreal as a few of us saw the news channels halfway across the globe - camp / construction site. then a second plane? something from H.Wood; channel mix-up(?) and then the disaster started to filter in.

just can't imagine how you witnessed it first hand,

truth be told, as awful as it is, awful terror occurs all over the globe regularly

just as someone being sick in my house garners more of my attention than someone next door

cultures tend to give their attention to things in their 'home',,,,so western cultures probably pay closer attention when something happens within another western culture than they do a culture they consider 'third world',,,,

It's not about 'black' people anymore. Condella Rice made a greater impact as F_Secy of USA than 'white' Clinton did. (speaking from India).

After B. Obama the word 'black' lost meaning to this part of the world where Muslims are in majority & may come as a surprise: Muslims in India are more 'white' than their Hindu counterparts.

So the question narrows down to coverage of Africa in comparison to Europe;
not black to white; unless we want to make it so.

Bozo haram, has had daily news coverage by the west, for several months.
One group of idiots or another, has made sure, that africa has stayed in the media spotlight, since the days of the unrest in Angola.

There was even coverage of mali, and the attacks in Algeria.

Given how Africa has hogged media attention for the past 40 years;

It's actually quite alright with me, if western media reports events that happen outside of Africa.

People got fed up with media coverage of Africa after The Great Vuvuzela Overload Epidemic at the 2010 World Cup.....

The media will follow the news that sells, always has. The US and other "white" countries have given more food and aid to the needy countries in Africa over many decades, and continue to give more aid today than any other "non-white" countries combined. You sir, do not know what the hell you are talking about.

how stupid...none of the the terrorists should be headlining news... maybe you should save your anti white sediments another website...

Boco Haram is not Oblowme's war(s)