Can someone please explain to me why the New York Times devoted 2 "pages" online to this story, about a "real life" Melrose Place-esque apartment, while "U.N. WARNS THAT MILLIONS RISK STARVATION" receives only 2 sentences? TWO SENTENCES. That's not even enough to call it a paragraph.

I know, I know - until Africa becomes a politically sensitive location for the US, which really means once it becomes of economic interest because of oil or becomes of social interest because of more Christians and/or white people living (and dying) in the area, it will remain merely a blip on Congress's collective radar.

I know, I know - there's the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, problems in Afghanistan, massive hurricane damage, Iran's unclear nuclear ambitions, oil disturbances in eastern Europe, losing the battle for democracy in Haiti, the fight for environmental protection and against poverty at home - but I still can't wrap my mind around how a wholly unenlightening feature on neighborly inbreeding is worthy of more NYT attention than STARVATION. Or India's purposefully declining female population. Or Fujimori's registration to run for president (again) in Peru.

I know, I know - the paper has to print the stories that will make people buy each day's edition, and people like to read fuzzy, human-interest related pieces. I know we ran many softer-than-a-two-minute-soft-boiled-egg stories when I was Focus Editor. But I still feel like the Times has a responsibility to its readership to provide a more somber, harsh, realistic view of the world as it's actually happening. And now that they own the International Herald Tribune, an old standby favorite of mine, that's not even an independent source of world-focused news!

So why is the average NYT reader more interested in the travails of apartment complex 126 than the daily struggles of people living on less than $1 a day? Is it because it's easier that way, to not be forced to face the reality of the disparity we continue to live in, unaffected as we pay more for a cup of coffee than the majority of the world sees in a week? Is it because humans are naturally, inherently self-centered and more comfortable being ignorant to the plights of their worldy neighbors? Or is it because the media, space, geography, and time make it easier for us to forget the sun rises on someone else's poverty while we bask in its setting's glow on prosperity?

How will things ever change if we can't find the room - or the compassion - in the limitless space - and empathy - of the internet to publish more than TWO SENTENCES about an entire people's suffering?

I wish I could change the world. I wish I knew where to start. I wish I had the confidence to think my actions, once deciding where to start, would make a difference so that I could fulfill Gandhi's, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."