You know what's always kinda bothered me about wildfire media

[cboy4]

coverage?

I just heard Anderson Cooper say, regarding the Malibu fire, that the flames are burning some of the most expensive homes in the world.

Reporters/anchors always seem to dwell on the fact when pricey homes are in danger or burn.

You never hear them say, "Tonight, dozens of moderate priced homes are in danger."

Why is the price of the house relevant?

It's tragic to see ANYBODY'S home burn.

If anything, it should be less of a big deal when expensive homes burn because theoretically, these are people who can easily afford to rebuild.

I've never understood why affluent homes are made out to be seemingly so much more important.

But that's just me.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Same reason why no one cares when Joe Lunchbox and Suzie Homemaker get divorced...

But Hollywood couples? Or Donald Trump? Stand back! Media frenzy!!!

[XemaSab]

2. I think there's a certain smug satisfaction in play

"Oh, look, Mel Gibson's house is burning down. Pity."

[AZBlue]

3. I see (and agree with) your point, but one nice thing to note:

locally at least no distinction is made when houses are in danger from wildfires. We have several fires a year here in Arizona and whether it's a $3.5 million dollar house or a $25,000 pre-fab home, it's covered equally here. Maybe on a national level it's just the celebrity angle that draws the "interest" - or maybe Anderson just ran out of things to say, who knows.

[cboy4]

4. Where I live, I hear reporters and anchors harp on

expensive neighborhoods during wildfires, and we're not talking about celebrity homes.

These are just "regular" neighborhoods, where rich people happen to live.

I realize that expensive homes and inexpensive homes will be covered equally when all is said and done.

The news is going to focus on whatever has burned or is threatened.

I just don't understand why the value needs to be pointed out.

When I see people weeping over the loss of everything they owned, I never say to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder how much their home was worth?"

[AZBlue]

5. You're right. A loss is a loss, period. And, no, the value isn't important.

Honestly, I'm more upset when I see someone in a less expensive home that's been threatened or caught fire because I figure they may be in less of a position to bounce back. I realize I'm making assumptions, but based on my own life, I worry that they may not have enough insurance and/or other resources to help themselves out. Plus, let's fact it...those homes in Malibu may not be their only home...it may just be a beach house! (That's not to say I don't feel bad for those in Malibu - don't get me wrong)

[cboy4]

8. Absolutely. Lets face it, it is more sad to see a middle class

family lose everything they own, for the reasons you mentioned.

[pinto]

7. Good point. Local news here routinely mentions "x structures have been destroyed",

w/out much mention of the relative price or such. Locally we hear more about wildfires than often makes the national news, and the Malibu cachet means more in the national press than here, fire-wise. I don't think it's that big a deal, but I see the point.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Here's the difference:

On the national news it's "BREAKING NEWS". But if it were average priced homes, it would be "DEVELOPING STORY".