In the movie The Paper, a group of editors for a New York tabloid are trying to decide how prominently to print the story of a terrible but distant plane crash when one of them asks if any New Yorkers died. It’s a morbid question that seems in poor taste, but it also reveals just how much of a local bias we have when it comes to news.

The same is true of coverage of distant weather. Do people care about storms in foreign lands? Not unless it somehow affects them, or people they care about. A weather-related disaster in a faraway region may briefly fascinate a wide audience, but attention spans tend to be limited.

People shouldn’t ignore those faraway stories. In our globalized world, the disruption of food, supply, and transport chains affect wide swathes of the planet, and it is becoming increasingly clear that burning fossil fuels and deforestation are increasing the risk of disasters around the world. A recently leaked report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states, “There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases,” the Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein reports.

In the case of the floods in Thailand, I had particularly good reason to pay attention. Having lived there for many years, and having friends and family there, I’ve been riveted by news of the rising flood waters that have inundated parts of the country, killed more than 500 people, and are threatening Bangkok. Despite now living in the US, I’ve received plenty of information about the disaster, both in Thai and in English from Thai newspapers such as The Nation and the Bangkok Post.

Following these events from overseas led to several lessons. First of all, the mix of media I relied on was probably different than from those living in Thailand, and that in turn made it clear that local residents were often focused on subjects and looking for information that was more practical and pragmatic than I was.

With little or no access to Thai broadcast media, I received virtually all news reports through friends and colleagues posting on social media, or by purposely looking at Thai media sites. Had I relied solely on the American press, I would know virtually nothing about it. Sure, the wire agencies and national newspapers have coverage, but you generally have to dig deep to find it. Much of the international coverage focused on how the floods are expected to affect global supply chains, particularly for certain technology products and commodities such as rice, and cause an estimated $6 billion in damage.

Much of the Thai coverage, on the other hand, focused on the politics surrounding the flood and relief efforts. Bangkokians have been frustrated by dysfunctional leadership during the crisis and the often contradictory information they’ve received about what areas were being threatened, what action to take, and whether to evacuate. Residents of some areas, resentful that their homes have been flooded while others remain protected, have illegally opened sluice gates, threatening neighboring areas. The Thai government declined offers of assistance from the US, and no one seemed to know why.

Under the circumstances, it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of anger in Bangkok at the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra. If you’ve followed Thailand’s political strife over the last few years, you’ll know that many city-dwellers already disliked her Pheu Thai party and its “red shirt” followers even before the floods. The crisis at least brought competing politicians together in at least a brief show of unity, although any cooperation seems to have been short lived. But all politics—like most weather reports—is local, they say. If you’re living far away, some of these political disputes can seem awfully small, compared to the immense challenge of figuring out how to prevent more damage from occurring.

TAGS: , , ,

James Fahn is the executive director of Internews's Earth Journalism Network and the author of A Land on Fire.