Which is more important?

I just Googled "Scott McClelland's book" and got 621,000 references. Then I Googled "candidates unified on Darfur," which produced just 94,300. Even then, a quick look at the Darfur sightings shows that most do not actually refer to the recent agreement among Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama to unite in support of the people of Darfur.

Let's compare these two stories:

The former has no real news value at all. It’s a small story about a minor, slightly dim, political functionary coming out publically against his bosses. If it weren’t for the fact that 70% of the country hates his bosses it would be no story at all.

On the other hand, the candidate’s Darfur agreement relates to a daily struggle of life and death by some of the most pathetically abused people on God’s earth, who are being hunted down and murdered like dogs by Arab mercenaries on horseback. That alone should make it a better story.
But on top of that, we have the three remaining candidates for the White House publically agreeing on something, (can anyone remember anything similar happening -- ever?), and their agreement takes the form of a moral commitment. How often do politicians do that?

And yet the Darfur story came and went in a day, while Matt Lauer and Keith Olbermann and the rest of them will be bloviating about the McClelland book and interviewing C-list politicos for their “analysis” for weeks to come.

Sometimes I think television intentionally focuses on the least important issues available to them at any given time.

Here’s a short video about the joint agreement from a very effective organization. They make it very easy to get your voice heard in case you want to participate.