What kills me about murder

The sentence hit me. "It turned out that the U.S. military lost fewer soldiers to hostile fire in Iraq in 2003 than Philadelphia lost residents to murder" (Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 2). \nIt was 7 a.m. My drooping eyes widened and read the sentence again -- I wished I was the author who had the pride of writing such a fantastically ironic lead. Then, I contemplated the significance of the sentence.\nDoes this mean U.S. citizens are safer in Iraq than in our own cities? Why is this nation trying to save others -- as honorable as this is -- when we cannot protect our own people? Is self-destruction a greater risk than a North Korean bombing? \nThe answer is in the numbers.\nThe U.S. Department of Defense reports 343 hostile deaths in Iraq from March 2003 until Jan.15, 2004. \nAs large as this number sounds, the Philadelphia Inquirer article tallies an unofficial 347 homicides for the "City of Brotherly Love" in 2003. The Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia report 248 homicides in 2003. Chicago had 560 murders this past year, excluding the final month, according to state Chicago Police Department statistics. Finally, the Big Apple saw over 500 murders, according to New York Police Department graphs. \nIn Iraq, 22 more soldiers had died than the total number of days the U.S. has been in Iraq. But for every soldier killed, approximately five persons died in one of the four cities listed above. Statistics for 2003 are not posted yet, but Indianapolis, reported 83 homicides in 2002. While this number looks low compared to other major cities, it still says Indianapolis suffered almost seven deaths a month. Should that not be headline news?\nI feel deceived by the media. The soldiers' deaths receive front-page coverage and are displayed as examples of the horror of violence, however, a murder within our own country will not receive coverage unless it is an unusual incident. "If it bleeds, it leads." So, how many murder stories receive the attention they deserve? Are city homicides so common among us we overlook them unless one affects us directly? Why is war "news," and murder mundane?\nFor the past month, I tried to read three to four newspapers a day -- the Wall Street Journal, Indianapolis Star, Indiana Daily Student and The New York Times. The only homicide articles I can remember are related to Iraq, Iran and the Gaza Strip. Obviously this is not a proper scientific test, but on the other-hand, I remember more articles about Kurds dying in the past month than articles about U.S. citizens murdered. \nTelevision has only so many hours, a newspaper only has so many pages and radio only has so many minutes. In the media industry, the sifting of news stories -- agenda setting -- is necessary, however, a million grains of news are not reported. Agenda setting can result in an ignorant audience. \nIs the agenda warped toward war because we are bored with the average murder or because everyday murder is not a perceived threat? I want to know the news from Iraq, but am I willfully ignorant of everyday violence?\nMaybe and maybe not. Evil will always exists in the world, and the media can never tell the whole story. But we had better keep things in perspective.