Last week, Brussels became the second capital city in Western Europe in less than four months to experience a deadly bomb attack.
When I compare the coverage of the attacks with what happened in Beirut or in Baghdad or in Istanbul and then in Brussels, it's another world.... Brussels... that's coverage day and night all the time.
Like the Paris attacks, it was one of those mega-stories which provoked coverage that went well beyond the event itself.
It led to televised talking heads having long discussions on state security and what limits should apply; delving into the issue of immigration and the perceived threat of Syrian refugees. One news channel in the US even used the Brussels attacks to revive the debate around torture.
As The New York Times put it: "It did not take long. Almost as soon as the bombs went off in Brussels" ... came …"the bitter debate about the influx of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa." Even though the two suicide bombers were neither refugees nor immigrants to Belgium. They were born there.
So why does the media focus so heavily on this story when equally deadly attacks occur in Ankara, Bamako and Baghdad? And what does the coverage say about the news industry and how the English-language news media see the world?
To talk us through the coverage of the Brussels attacks and the politics behind it are: Habib Battah, editor of The Beirut Report; Jack Mirkinson, a reporter at Salon; Myria Georgiou, a media professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science; and Rudi Vranckx, a correspondent at Belgian state broadcaster VRT.
Source: Al Jazeera