Can someone explain to me why general proximity is supposed to make me care more about a story? Whether a person is from Shakopee MN, or Borger TX, I still don't know the person. I may feel sympathy, or hatred, or whatever for the people in a news story based upon the situation, but the fact that they vacationed in Duluth once in 1968 means nothing. Why do we (or the media) grasp onto that as if it makes a fricken difference? They take that tidbit of trivia and use it to propel a story to the front page.
We get a photo in the Duluth paper about a soldier from Albert Lea, Minnesota! who dies in Iraq. What about the other thousands? It doesn't "personalize" or "localize" the story for me. I just find it annoying that is the only thing they can find to report about. Anyway, Paul, thanks for the post, that rant has been building up inside me for a while now.

Paul, not necessarily to "take you to task," but rather to bolster my points, I have the following rebuttal.

To infer that we "could know that person, or easily have known that person" carries no weight with me to warrant playing the "local" card. I feel like if I DO know the person, then fine. People who don't know the person don't need to know that there is a greater likelihood that somebody they know might know the person. The fact that the person has a tie to Minnesota is really irrelevant to the story for all but those who know the person, and they don't need to be told that there is a tie.

Further, the potential that I may have known the person, or even recognize the name, is little more than a curiosity, and, quite frankly, nobody else's business.

I will concede that if the person lives in Duluth, currently, there may be more of a reason to report it in that context (but just maybe). Otherwise, no point. Having relatives in Duluth ... no point in mentioning it. More than 50 miles from Duluth ... again, no point.

Those interested in the story because of the local "hook" will know and pay attention. To infer that I should pay greater attention because of the "hook" is ridiculous. 

To me it reeks of sadly unsubstantiated sensationalism. 
Thanks for the reply though.

Thank you, Paul. Well said. I don't know the hikers, but one year is a long time, and I do care about them.

Just reading the news, and I find this:

The Iranian government now says Sarah Shourd won't be freed from jail Saturday despite having announced her imminent release Thursday. The reason: legal processes aren't complete. She's the fiancee of fellow prisoner and Minnesota native Shane Bauer. 

Jailed American's Release Canceled

How very sad.

These are only media reports, nothing has been confirmed and made official; we still have our finger crossed that Sarah will be taken home. 9AM Tehran is 11:30PM CST ... only an hour and a half to go.

Okay, I will settle with being out-voted here. I actually didn't mean to hijack the thread completely with this somewhat tangential rant, and probably should have posted the rant as a seperate topic. Sorry for that...kinda. I don't think many, if any, of the responses have really comprehended the sublteties of my beef (can I say "subtleties of my beef" on here?).

To explain, I DO actually care about the hiker story/issue. I also agree that the story is global in scope, and I am glad to hear periodic updates and news about it. However, I do NOT care that one of them is from Minnesota. One being from MN certainly doesn't make me care MORE, which is what most mentions of the connections in the media attempt to burden us with. But that is belaboring the point.

Perhaps trying to clarify my point is...pointless.

P.S. I also don't care about Kara Goucher or Bob Dylan, and I had no idea that Jessica Lange had a Minnesota connection, not that I would care.