Media complicity or giving the people what they want?

I've had a new "Coalition for Darfur" button in the corner for a couple of days, though I haven't mentioned it yet. The coalition blog just put up a rather damning new post. It quantifies the lack of media attention to Darfur by comparing the amount of network news coverage its recieved to that received by "important" events like the Martha Stewart trial and her release. The coalition is trying to cut across partisan lines among blogs, which would certainly be nice, though the coaltion only makes a very small dent in the divisiveness rending the world of blogs. I guess the underlying argument is supposed to be that if Darfur got more major media attention, there would be a higher level of demand by the American people for an intervention of some kind to stop the death there. But it's not clear to me that the causation goes in that direction, rather than in reverse. If Darfur were the sort of thing that a large (or a very vocal) number Americans were likely to demand government action about, the media would probably be covering it more. I'm not saying this is certainly the right direction to draw the link in, but the way the piece implies it goes doesn't have to the case either

The titular question is a false choice, the answer could be both, or neither.