system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: It is reasonable for the media to focus on the Paris attacks more than attacks in Lebanon and Sinai.

Muslim extremism causes a horrific number of deaths and suffering in the Middle East, and obviously I would never dream of claiming that their lives are unimportant. From a purely moral, altruistic, humanitarian sense, the media have undoubtably placed too much emphasis on the Paris attacks.

However, the media is not a humanitarian organization. Its job is to cover potentially significant events, and while a bombing in Beirut is awful, it has very little potential to affect international relations or diplomacy. France is a full democracy, a global power and a member of NATO. These conditions set apart the Paris attack from others like it and give the media reasonable justification for increased coverage.
gpt
>From a purely moral, altruistic, humanitarian sense, the media have undoubtably placed too much emphasis on the Paris attacks.

But isn't this exactly the angle people who have an issue with the recent media coverage? It seems like the argument for more balanced media coverage is exactly that people should focus on such issues such as the moral and humanitarian aspects instead of how powerful a country is. 

Perhaps you could elaborate more on why you think the conditions you mention are more important or otherwise justify the increased media attention. It seems like your statements are more like conclusions rather than arguments.