Another thing I just wanted to throw in here, on top of what others have already said, is that the news media exists in the same cultural ecosystem as the public, so generally the audience and the media itself will mirror each other’s sensibilities.

The bulk of news media based in the United States is created and consumed by white people. White billionaires and their families - side note: actually two were Pakistani - involved in a tragedy, whether they truly understood the risks/consequences of their actions or not, are inherently more sympathetic figures to many white Americans, than largely non-white migrants and refugees are.

This disparity in sympathy will color how the media covers the different tragedies. Migrant and refugee stories receive a passing mention, a short segment, and maybe a few op-eds mulling over whether western nations should open their doors to migrants and refugees. The average American might even momentarily lament their deaths before turning the TV off or changing the channel or continuing to scroll their social media feed. Eventually, these stories and mainstream discussion of them will be obscured and forgotten.

Meanwhile, some older, ultra-wealthy men, whose submarine implodes on a whimsical expedition to inspect the wreckage of the Titanic, will have (and have had) their tragedy memorialized with feature-length documentaries which pay actors to dramatically recreate the events leading up to their deaths. There will be “60 Minutes” interviews with their family members, deep-sea researchers, physicists, policy-makers, and other experts. The general public will be able to recount, in detail, much of the facts about the case, and there will be all manner of conspiracy theories about it. The media and the public will equally engage in this back-and-forth spectacle over what happened for years after.

I forgot what my point was so this is somewhat of a ramble, but I’m generally on the same page with the other comments.