India and Pakistan at it again

[Almighty Colin]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nw...nws-test27.html

India on Wednesday also accused Pakistan of having a hand in this week's murder of 24 Hindus in disputed Kashmir, and the two countries exchanged heavy artillery fire across the cease-fire line dividing the Himalayan province between them.

[Mike AI]

This potential conflict is one that worries me the most.....

[Almighty Colin]

Me too.

[RawAlex]

Sadly, there is no great US interest in this specific area, except for the terrorists hiding in these countries. Other than that, they can kill themselves all they want and they won't get a whole lot of play in the US. Because there is no US 'official' interest, there is going to be little in the news cycle to create any public opinion.

The Onion once had a headline: "50,000 brown people die somewhere" - and honestly, all the fighting in Kashmir falls into that category. We all think it is a shame, but nobody is lining up to fix it (until they threaten to use nukes, the the US gets all excited for about a week, until they back down, then it goes back to just being a spot on the map again)

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Strange read, Alex. About five years ago during the last flare-up between India and Pakistan, the story received a lot of US media coverage and all the news rags were carrying stories like "Will there be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan?"

[RawAlex]

Colin, there are flareups all the time over there... About a year ago, they finally threatened nukes. As I said, the only time the US got involved was because they threatened nukes... it got covered for as long as that piece of news hit the cycle. Once that was over, the reports disappeared.

They have been fighting for this piece of land for a long time. People die all the time. They fire shots at eachother regularly (daily basis, from what I can tell) - but it gets no coverage in the US because there is no US interest.

I bet if they yelled "NUKES" tomorrow, they would be front page for a couple of weeks again...

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 27 2003, 01:18 PM
it gets no coverage in the US

I suppose evidence will prove nothing to you ...

These, as you know, are US news sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/sout...ests/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82205,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82032,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/27/...ain538033.shtml

I'm sure you'll try and find a way to worm out of your statement ("But, no one reads those pages!") I did!

I don't really understand your point though. Why are you so concerned over "US interest" and why do you characterize it as "sadly"?



Last edited by Colin at Mar 27 2003, 01:45 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 27 2003, 01:18 PM
Colin, there are flareups all the time over there... About a year ago, they finally threatened nukes. As I said, the only time the US got involved was because they threatened nukes... it got covered for as long as that piece of news hit the cycle. Once that was over, the reports disappeared.

They have been fighting for this piece of land for a long time. People die all the time. They fire shots at eachother regularly (daily basis, from what I can tell) - but it gets no coverage in the US because there is no US interest.

I bet if they yelled "NUKES" tomorrow, they would be front page for a couple of weeks again...

Alex

Alex, the U.S. tried to exert what influence it can on that conflict long before either country was a nuclear power. As an old fucker, I can remember a lot of instances when the U.S. played a role in averting/attempting to avert a war between them.

You'll find references to most flareups in Kashmir in the major newspapers (NY Times, etc).

Interesting to note that this situation seems to be getting more tense within days of a series of attacks by Hindus on Shiks that killed over 50. That too happens all the time, and gets even less coverage than the India/Pakistan conflict. You almost have to wonder if there is a domestic component to the increase in tensions on the Indian side.

[RawAlex]

Colin, your examples only server to support my view - as long as it is nuclear, it is a whitehouse issue, it is in the "spin", and gets played in newspapers and TV all over the US.

I didn't say "US Interests", I said "Sadly, there is no great US interest in this specific area" - it is sad that people die every day in an almost endless war, but because there is no underlying importance to the area (except the current possiblity of terrorists hiding out), there is little information in the western media.

When people die when nobody is looking, does anyone ever know?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 27 2003, 04:09 PM
Colin, your examples only server to support my view - as long as it is nuclear, it is a whitehouse issue, it is in the "spin", and gets played in newspapers and TV all over the US.

I didn't say "US Interests", I said "Sadly, there is no great US interest in this specific area" - it is sad that people die every day in an almost endless war, but because there is no underlying importance to the area (except the current possiblity of terrorists hiding out), there is little information in the western media.

When people die when nobody is looking, does anyone ever know?

Alex

And this is specific to the United States? Why do you target the US specifically in your statement? Why not say PEOPLE are most interested in the things that affect them rather than singling out the US?

Is there widespread interest where you live for what is going on in Burundi today? Can you name off the top any of the factions involved? How about Nigeria? Zimbabwe? How many people do you know that could summarize the ongoing conflicts in those areas? Is this a US thing or something about humans in general?

Alex >>>---> >>>---> >>>---> >>>---> >>>--->America

Legend:
>>>---> Arrow



Last edited by Colin at Mar 27 2003, 04:26 PM

[RawAlex]

Colin, it is all about "spin"... nothing more - don't try to play me as Anti-American. That is just talking shit to waste time. Keep going there, and I will drop out of the discussion. Is it possible to comment on anything american without being branded "anti-american"?

It is about what is considered "important" and what isn't. It really sucks that people die in those places without any notice, and yet "Bob stubbed his toe in Congress today" is a four minute story. The whitehouse doesn't comment on it, the news media decides not to pick it up because there is no "american interest" (not american interests) in the story, and people go on dying without any comment. It is sad because too often, the list of stories / agenda of the news is set by what came from Washington, not what is actually going on in the world.

There is actually a national TV chain in Canada (Global) that has a reported in the gulf, and their tagline is "the only news from the gulf that hasn't been approved by Pentagon". I laughed when I heard that today.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

I'm saying that I don't understand what you are referring to as a particularly American problem.

The fact that you and/or hardly anyone you know is aware of today's news from Burundi is NOT unique because of where you are from. It's because EVERYWHERE people know more about things that directly affect them than things that do not. It wouldn't make sense for me to say out of the blue "Sadly, there is no French interest in this issue" unless I wanted to say something specific about France.

It's not even indicative of a lack of coverage. CNN.com DOES carry a story about Burundi today. You could read it, I could read it, anyone can read it. Why didn't you? Not interesting?
Probably because there a million actual news stories today and the ones you relate to most have nothing to do with Burundi.

I assume we agree on the basic premise but am still miffed as to whether you are saying it is a particularly American problem or not - since you singled out the US I thought that is what you meant.

If so, I would like to argue the above. Prove me wrong.

If not, we agree. Nothing to discuss.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 27 2003, 05:08 PM

[RawAlex]

Colin, while the media in many places has a problem with not covering all news (I live in Quebec, where the French media often doesn't seem to think anything happens outside of this province... )

However, I do feel that the American media is often "lead by the nose" to the news of the day - less of looking at the global picture, and more about reporting on what was served to them. Too much of the modern US media is victimized by the way that politicians, and specifically the White House, control the news cycle to get their stories out there... and as a result, other stories don't get reported at all.

Remember that most Americans still get their news from a half hour national news cast (combined viewership of CNN and foxnews in a 24 hour period during this war still doesn't even come close to the average audience for CBS evening news). The objective of the politicians is to try to jam as much favorable news into that time frame, by putting out as many press releases, reports, leaks, interviews, quotes, and public events to make sure that the media has too much to report - they want to put as many quotes and sound bites out there which will help shape the news of the day.

It happens in almost all countries with a free press. I feel that in the US, since the time of Bush Sr, there has been less and less "reporting" and more time spent just moving cameras from press event to press event. They take that tape and fill in the spaces with talking heads expressing opinion not fact - and that opinion is more often than not formed by the background material provided in the press conference. Not very much digging, much more "reporting what we were given".

With this aparatus in place, it is hard to get any coverage for a war in African countries, unless it reaches the level of genocide. Realize that the deaths of 72 people in what amounts to a civil war was buried far into the CNN site... (click on the small world news link that most people don't realize they can click, and then scroll all the way down the page) http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/03/27...reut/index.html

But, on the front page of the CNN site, you get a direct link to:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/03/27/m...reut/index.html

"The U.S. government has won back a tiny lump of 3.9-billion-year-old moon rock brought to Earth by the crew of Apollo 17 and stolen years ago from the government of Honduras, U.S. officials said on Wednesday"

A moon rock is more important than 72 lives? Apparently!

Alex



Last edited by RawAlex at Mar 27 2003, 05:50 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 27 2003, 05:48 PM
A moon rock is more important than 72 lives? Apparently!

The question is to compare though. You've only pointed to what CNN does but not to what media elsewhere does by comparison. You're attempting to prove your proposition by only looking at confirming evidence and ignoring falsifiable evidence.

What is the comparison? Let's look at the BBC.

The BBC, by the same logic you just used considers a story on a man that cheated on a game show to be more important than 72 lives.

This is on the front page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2891957.stm
The Burundi story is not.

Would you categorize the BBC in the same way you've categorized CNN? Using the same exact evidence one would have to draw the same conclusion about the BBC as CNN. Fair? If not, maybe you would prefer to compare media by differing and varying standards in order to force the wished-for result?

[RawAlex]

Ummm, Colin, hate to disappoint you, but the Burundi story is on the fornt page of http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (world edition)...

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 27 2003, 07:34 PM
Ummm, Colin, hate to disappoint you, but the Burundi story is on the fornt page of http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (world edition)...

Alex

Yeah, ok. It's on the front page at CNN too then.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

"World Edition"

So far you've shown a story not carried at UK BBC or US CNN
You've shown the same story carried at CNN world and BBC world

I'm confused. Are you trying to prove me right or you?



Last edited by Colin at Mar 28 2003, 04:51 AM

[RawAlex]

Colin, your trying to sneak the discussion off into a total sideline. CNN world is an inside page of a website - if you go to the CNN international edition (which is the equivilant of the BBC world edition) you would not find the story - until you click on world news, and go inside that section looking for it.

Every region has it's news. It is just sad as hell to see that world conflicts only get FRONT PAGE coverage (or inside the 30 minutes of TV news coverage) in the US only when the state department, or the whitehouse sends out a talking head to say something about it. Otherwise, it gets buried. 72 dead people is 72 dead people, no?

Anyway, we are just going in circles now, totally off from the original point.

The point is this: Until India and Pakistan got nukes, nobody in the US even knew they were fighting over Kashmir... the nukes show up, and suddenly the State Department et al. are out there talking it up, and it makes the front page. No increase in death, no increase in fighting, but suddenly it's news... how many years after they started?

It's the news cycle... mostly controlled by a small group of people.

Alex

[RawAlex]

CNN international edition: http://edition.cnn.com/

WORLD is a subsection of this... WORLD ain't the front page....

Colin, just admit your wrong for once and the world will be a nicer place. :-)

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 11:17 AM
Colin, just admit your wrong for once and the world will be a nicer place. :-)

You first.

[RawAlex]

What, you want I give yout he JR treatment as well?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 12:28 PM
What, you want I give yout he JR treatment as well?

Alex

Treatment? Uh oh! Are you gonna sic PETA* on me again?

*People for the Ethical Treatment of Alex