The news story on the latest famines assumes that "we" actually care about the people suffering hunger and other forms of immiseration. It rests on this assumption throughout, despite the fact that this assumption contradicts a mountain of evidence...
Many of the "leaders" of this nation have long been about as explicit as they can be about their feelings about life. Their behavior--and hosts of documents readily available within the public domain--indicate that they favor massive and rapid reduction of the global human population. Their policy decisions are congruent with those feelings.
How is news "objective" when it continually looks away from this Truth? When it continues to act as if we are all genuinely motivated to resolve crises like famines, in the face of evidence that demonstrates exactly the opposite?
Of course, many modern news readers also feel that such mass suffering and death is an inevitable consequence of our species' devouring behaviors. We can't be effective at constraining those who are happy to induce and profit from mass death because we, too, are subject to the feeling that this outcome is inevitable.
How is the news "objective" when it continually ignores the soils of perception and feeling that underlie our thoughts and actions with regard to policy? When it always focuses on the mushroom of today's crisis, and rarely, if ever, inquires into the mycelial web of longstanding and deeply rooted human habits of moving, feeling and perceiving--the mycelial web of which all the policy mushrooms are tiny, short-lived outgrowths?
We're not going to meet the challenges of this evolutionary bottleneck we're in by doing more of what we've been doing. Jounalists, I hope you'll be creative and courageous enough to recognize that these times call for a radical reimagination of what is news, and newsworthy.