What does Dimaggio mean when he refers to worthy and unworthy victims? why is this distinction important? In answering these questions, you should refer to multiple examples of the distinction.
From book - 'When Media Goes to War', Anthony Dimaggio
"When Media goes to War"
"When Media Goes to War" contains DiMaggio's criticisms of US Mass Media and its social role in shaping public behavior and opinion as well as public policies. DiMaggio believed, that newspapers and television news programs play a decisive role in determining what people think, and must therefore be responsive to the majority and not just the powerful and privileged few. Unfortunately, DiMaggio's analysis showed that media coverage of international issues is always skewed toward the official U.S. government viewpoint. This is because media only get information that they publish from the government spokespersons. He said, "sadly, this version of reporting international news in which the press relies almost exclusively on official sources is pervasive throughout U.S. newsrooms."
Consequently a distinction is made between what DiMaggio labeled as " Unworthy victims" and "Worthy victims" which supposedly would mean as "subjects of international news reporting". DiMaggio wrote: "People who die or are otherwise harmed by U.S. state terror and (but who are) Washington's clients and allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Columbia, Turkey, and Indonesia, to name a handful) are "Unworthy Victims." They do not merit much (media) attention, personalization, empathy, or concern. Their sufferings elicit no alarm and distress. They take place on the wrong and invisible side of the intrinsically noble guns and policies of honorable ...
The soltuion provides a review of Anthony Dimaggio's 'When the Media Goes to War' book especially his position on worthy and unworthy victims in relation to his varied examples of distinction.