"Why Is The U.S. Press Ignoring Pakistan’s Devastating, Dangerous Floods?"

[sabrina 1]

It's a question being asked more often by more people especially considering that the U.S. Government is not ignoring them by any means. The U.S. right now is the top donor and in just the past week has sent in the U.S. military to help the Pakistani Military deliver aid to the victims of the floods.

But the U.S. Media has barely covered what it is generally agreed is one of the worst natural disasters in history. And it is happening in a country that is a U.S. ally in the great War on Terror. Such prominent politicians as Sen. John Kerry have already been there, determining how best to use the money he and Lugar had allocated already for projects in Pakistan, billions of dollars, some of which the U.S. government is now permitting to be used for relief efforts.

It is a big story, and around the world it is being covered. But the U.S. Press is all but ignoring it. I have read many opinions on why, from various sources. None of them make sense since aside from the humanitarian tragedy unfolding and only getting worse each day, Pakistan is so important to U.S. interests at the moment.

Leaving aside the political elements involved, how about the scientific significance of this disaster in relation to Climate Change? The images of millions of displaced people as a result of natural disasters we are now seeing in Pakistan are eerily similar to the predictions made in the Pentagon's own report on what they claimed was the biggest threat to National Security back in 2004. So why the silence even on that aspect of the disaster?

From JackandJill:

Why Is The U.S. Press Ignoring Pakistan’s Devastating, Dangerous Floods?

There’s been disturbingly little coverage of the same scale received in the aftermath of Haiti’s earthquake compared to the disaster unfolding in rural Pakistan right now. Anderson Cooper is not broadcasting 24/7 from Pakistan holding little brown babies in his arms. Diane Sawyer isn’t confronting doctors in the field for failing to treat patients adequately. No doubt, the coverage of the Haitian earthquake was moving, shocking, gripping — and appropriate to the scale of the disaster and the human toll.

Yet why is the American mainstream media so unconcerned about Pakistan? It doesn’t make good got-dang sense! Honestly –I’m completely baffled. It’s one of the largest humanitarian crises we’ve seen in recent years likely exacerbated by the impact of global warming on the globe’s weather, but not only that — it’s happening right near the war zone right across the border from where we’re fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This is a massively important story with global ramifications yet how much do you really know about what’s going on? It’s about 10,000 times more critical than the NYC mosque situation, but frankly I felt I knew much more about that sitch than about what’s going down in Pakistan’s Swat Valley.

The Swat Valley was in the news many months ago when Pakistani Military forces focused on clearing out the Taleban from the area and declared their efforts a success after months of heavy fighting and many casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Swat People began returning to their homes after the fighting ended. Only to be driven out again by the floods which have taken out every single bridge in the area, leaving those left behind completely cut off. Will the Taliban now move back in after all that effort?

Isn't that a big story all by itself?

Huffington Post has an article today also on the subject:

Ignoring Floods in Pakistan Can Lead to Terrorism

13.8 million people in Pakistan are affected by the worst flood in a century. More than 1,500 are dead and many more unaccounted for. Entire villages and towns have been consumed by rising water levels, and hundreds of thousands are stranded. The only real quiet in this storm has been international response. It's one that could lead to future support of regional extremist groups.

.......

The Pakistan floods of 2010 strike a strange similarity to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. The world distracted by two major events -- then the tsunami and Katrina, and now Haiti and the Gulf spill. It also reminded me of a couple of other things from 2005. It was the first time our office received strong negative emails regarding whether we should respond. These ranged from the simple "why should we help those people?" to almost gleeful emails at the tragic situation. Due to lack of interest and support, we focused on a simple reconstruction manual (now being used in Haiti), but decided not to get directly involved. We did re-route well-meaning groups and individuals to local organizations like Karavan Pakistan and their Earthquake KAPIT-program.

Feeling like I had let colleagues down, I reached out to an independent USAID* contractor about the state of the reconstruction. His response was eye-opening. At the time, he was less concerned by the lack of funding but what will happen when the international community walks away. He implored, "Guess who will build the schools and health clinics? A well-funded group that will step in looking to win the hearts and minds of the people? The extreme factions of the Taliban. People don't just become terrorists, they join these groups when there is nothing left to lose."

There is also the fact that supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan come through Pakistan. We learned today that this has been affected as supply trucks became bogged down as they tried to make their way through.

The story is a big one. From so many aspects, Climate Change, the War in Afghanistan, the potential for Pakistan becoming a failed state with nuclear weapons. But the U.S. press has all but ignored it for over three weeks now.

But most of all because it is a humanitarian disaster of mammoth proportions and it is the right thing to do to reach out and help other human beings who need it. Today, thanks to Turborama, we learned that the reaction by the Pakistani people to the aid given by the U.S. military, has been overwhelmingly positive. It is changing their views of the U.S. Wouldn't that be a story too? How we have found a better way to fight terrorism?

Here on DU there hasn't been much interest in this unfolding tragedy either. But for those who are interested, Turborama has been posting daily reports and news on the disaster and thanks to his efforts I have been able to keep up with the story without having to do the research myself which I am very grateful for. You can find all the information and photos of this disaster that he has worked to bring to DU in his journal http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama

Edited to add that du'er Aguart in comments reminded me that Sanjay Gupta has been sent to Pakistan to cover the floods. He is the son of immigrant Indian and Pakistani parents and probably is very familiar with the region. Hopefully this will help bring the world's attention to this story.

[malaise]

1. Why?

'Them is Muslims' - yep that's it.

[sabrina 1]

19. Part of it definitely

As the HuffPo blogger said, when the Kashmir earthquake struck, they got nasty emails asking why anyone should care. The propaganda has been very effective. We have a new enemy and it will make many people very rich if we can keep it that way for a long time.

[Klukie]

20. You nailed it

[aquart]

2. Try Twitter.

Right now, Sanjay Gupta and his crew is 30 hours into their journey to the flood zone with one flight left to go.

And that may account for some of the trouble with the coverage. It ain't easy getting in there.

[sabrina 1]

3. Yes, I heard he is going there. And I know that CNN has

had at least one crew over there. I posted an article by a CNN reporter. But we are in the fourth week of this disaster and as everyone knows, how it is covered from the beginning, as one Human Rights organization pointed out, is critical to how the world responds.

I am very glad Sanjay Gupta is there. Maybe now there will be more interest in it.

[malaise]

4. Three weeks late n/t

[xultar]

8. Did u see all that water? I don't doubt finding a way to land a plane or copter

Or drive Would be difficult. Even in an earthquake u can land buy water is a whole nother level.

[malaise]

11. BBC people were there in two days

Please

[Turborama]

16. Al Jazeera English were there as it happened

As you probably know. :hi:

[xultar]

21. BBC has a bureau there the US pulled out after Daniel pearl. And the us msm closed most bureaus

To cut cost

I'm not saying it is right I'm just saying

[Turborama]

29. Is the minimizing of news coverage from outside the US by American MSM to cut costs

Or by design?

CNN International really should be broadcast in the US as well as domestic CNN, but it isn't.

Al Jazeera English should be broadcast across the States but due to Bushco they were stopped, I went into a great deal of detail about the history of what happened http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6848728">here.

There's a really good online campaign to try and resolve that, though: http://www.iwantaje.net/

BBC America is a very watered down version of BBC World, the version everyone outside the US gets to see.


There's a lesson from history we could look at for a possible reason...

"I consider radio to be the most modern and the most crucial instrument for influencing the masses" was a famous and important quote from Goebbels.

(today, we could easily update that by changing "radio" to "24/7 cable news")

His other famous and important quote was...

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Full quote, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html">here.

Volksempfänger

The Volksempfänger (German for "people's receiver") was a range of radio receivers developed by Otto Griessing at the request of Joseph Goebbels.

The purpose of the Volksempfänger-program was to make radio reception technology affordable to the general public. Joseph Goebbels realized the great propaganda potential of this relatively new medium and thus considered widespread availability of receivers highly important.


Volksempfaenger & 1936 Nazi propaganda poster, promoting
the use of the Volksempfänger

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksempf%C3%A4nger

More on the use of the radio by Goebbels' "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda#Propaganda">Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda"....

Radio

The radio was an important tool in Nazi propaganda and it has been argued that it was the Nazis who pioneered the use of what was still a relatively new technology as a tool of genocide. Certainly the Nazis recognised the importance of radio in disseminating their message and to that end Goebbels approved a scheme whereby the production and distribution of millions of cheap radio sets was subsidised by the government. By the start of the Second World War over 70% of German households had one of these radios, which were deliberately limited in range in order to prevent them picking up foreign broadcasts. These so-called Volksempfänger featured little beyond propaganda and speeches. Radio broadcasts were also played over loudspeakers in public places and workplaces, where listeners were frequently observed by radio wardens.

=snip=

Pro-Nazi broadcasts were even heard in North Africa, where Mohammad Amin al-Husayni helped to insure the spread of Nazi ideas in the Arabic language.

More, including links to references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Radio

How many foreign TV news channels are available in the US?

How many McDonald's etc have Faux on 24/7....?

Also, on a side note, Faux is the only American "news" station that is broadcast live unfiltered across the world, including 84 providers in Pakistan, as I detailed http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8976871">here.

[sabrina 1]

32. It's by design, Turborama.

The U.S. carefully monitors what news its citizens are allowed to receive. Which is why we are among the most ignorant people in the civilized world.

The American people accept the silencing of its best journalists, and shutting down of people like Bill Maher eg, just in case they might influence some of the people and interfere with the 'catapulting of the propaganda'. How else could they keep the support of the people for their foreign adventures?

In the end it will be up to the American people whether they continue to accept this censorship or decide to fight for a real free press.

Whenever I go to Europe I am reminded instantly of the awful state of our media. The hours and hours of time wasted on the likes of Sarah Palin, but then if you look at this board and others, people do it themselves. The propagandists know what will grab the short attention spans of the average consumer, which is all we really are at this point.

Excellent post, thank you for taking the trouble to provide the links and information.

[sabrina 1]

33. I meant to say that this post should be an OP.

Another example of the press, in this case Radio, influencing the public ending in genocide, was in Rwanda. I remember the UN debating over whether the radio stations should be cut off which would probably have saved lives but decided against it or waited too long for a decision.

And it was propaganda by the Belgians that initially contributed to making enemies of the Hutus and Tutsis who were originally very compatible.

[DailyGrind51]

5. People are just "crisised out" and money is hard to come by for most.

[sabrina 1]

6. I think that's true, but doesn't explain the press silence on the story

I know a lot of people cannot afford to donate, but the story itself is a big story and it is now going four weeks since it began.

But now that Sanjay Gupta is there I'm sure we'll see more coverage and even if people cannot donate, they can ask others to do so, as eg, many bloggers have been doing.

As the HuffPo blogger in the OP said, when he was working on disasters, they did not cover the Kashmir earthquake because they were getting such negative emails 'why should we help these people' eg, and decided there was not enough interest or outright antagonism towards the region.

[babylonsister]

7. I think Ann Curry is/was also there last week. nt

[aquart]

10. What kind of coverage do you want?

You want it covered like Katrina which was on our own soil? Or Haiti, which is a near neighbor?

The media has not been SILENT. We know about the event from the media.

Our State Department is using Twitter to put out regular notices about what we are doing and what others can do to help.

Here's a thought: WE are not next door. There are other nations which can be there in less than 30 hours. Dubai people have been spending their weekends since the disaster putting together aid packages. I'm going to assume other nearer neighbors have, as well.

on edit: We do have soldiers next door in Afghanistan. They have been lining up to volunteer to fly aid missions into Pakistan. What more do you want? Vanity coverage of the aid missions? More pictures of unhappy children?

What will satisfy your sense of rightness?

I don't give a damn about the news coverage. We're going to lose millions, maybe tens of millions of people in the next 50-100 years because of climate change. I want to know whether this flood fertilized or destroyed the farmland. I want to know if it's going to flood next year like this as well. And the year after. I want to know why we aren't hearing about flooding in India. The Ganges didn't get monster rain? Season hasn't hit yet? Sad pictures of people crying HELP ME are going to do what if Pakistan has lost one-fifth of its farmland? If they can't feed them, they won't save them...and maybe you don't want to look at how ugly it's going to get. Because people are going to be fighting to live.

And then one day, it will be the Mississippi.

This is just the beginning.

[sabrina 1]

14. Well, you answered the question. I think I was clear on

the many different aspects of this story and why it is so important. Climate Change was one that I mentioned, and may be one of the most important.

India is not our ally in the War on Terror. We have forced the Pakistani Government basically into taking risks both politically and with their own safety into helping us in Afghanistan. The Pakistan military has been asked to fight elements in their country that they in many cases, would prefer not to be fighting, but have. Many Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives in those efforts. Not to mention that their families and friends are now targets of the extremist elements there.

Pakistan is very important right now to this country.

Do you think we can use people the way have used Pakistan for our own benefit and then ignore them when they need help?

As I pointed out, the U.S. military IS helping, but just recently and that is a good thing. And the soldiers and the general overseeing that mission has praised the Pakistani highly for their work in securing the safety of U.S. troops etc.

But they were slow to start helping until it dawned on them just how critical that country is to the War in Afghanistan and against extremists. Americans are entitled to know what the ramifications of the collapse of the Pakistani government would have for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Or would you prefer that as usual, Americans remain ignorant of these very important issues while people in the rest of the world are informed?

What exactly do YOU think is the job of our media?

[sabrina 1]

17. Your are correct. She was there when John Kerry was there.

She interviewed him although I did not see that report.

[DailyGrind51]

61. Some of the apathy may be just that people are tired of hearing about "that" part of the world.

We have already expended lives and treasure in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and, with unemployment, the oil spill, and other more local problems, people may be just tuned out.

[Turborama]

9. K&R Thanks for the excellent OP Sabrina.

Please check your PM inbox asap

I'll be commenting on your OP later but please check your PM inbox while you can still edit.

[sabrina 1]

12. I just did and thank you for that correction.

I mistakenly stated that it was NATO forces that cleared the Taleban out of teh Swat Valley. And that is a major mistake, as NATO forces are not allowed into Pakistan to fight the Taleban, not officially anyhow. It was the Pakistani military who did so. And at great cost to themselves both politically and otherwise.

Thanks Turborama for pointing that out. I am embarrassed to have made such a mistake, :blush: but glad it got corrected thanks to you.

[sendero]

13. I think Pakistan...

.. is really upset not by a lack of coverage but by the apparent lack of support.

I'm not sure why they are surprised. I think most Americans, correctly so, do not see them as our friend.

Of course, humanitarian aid should not be predicated on "friendship", but guess what, it is.

[sabrina 1]

15. Well, I disagree regarding them not being our friend.

And if that's what the American people think, I believe it makes my point about the lack of coverage of these issues in the U.S.

Pakistan is officially a U.S. ally in the war on terror and has used its own military to ferret out Taleban forces in their own country. Sometimes at great cost to themselves.

Not only that but NATO forces rely on Pakistan to get supplies for the war to Afghanistan.

It's true that the Musharaff government was not exactly trustworthy, but the U.S. knew that and used him anyhow. Now there is a secular government in Pakistan although it is very fragile at the moment. From the POV of the West, this government is very important. And if they can show they are capable of handling this disaster, they will win over their own people too. But if not, then the Taleban and the Military Generals will simply take over.

[sendero]

18. Many of the populace..

... have been and still do play ball with the Taliban. Their own "security service" does as well.

Pronouncements by a "government" are worth a bucket of warm spit. As for them "taking over", it won't be hard no matter what we do.

I'm tired of the idea we can buy people out of their core ideology. It has never worked and it's not going to work here either.

[sabrina 1]

22. I agree that we cannot buy people out of ideology, but

we could coerce them out of it by NOT killing their civilians and not always backing their most brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussein.

We could do it by doing more of what we are doing in Pakistan right now, be there with aid when people need it, instead of bombs.

People turn to extremists when they have nowhere else to turn. We and the Brits before us are causing the radicalization of these elements.

What do you think would happen here if another country was bombing us, or killing our citizens calling them terrorists on our own soil? I think we'd radicalize far faster than these people have.

But most Pakistanis are people who just want to live in peace like everyone else. We could help them to do that by doing more of what the military is doing there right now.

[lunatica]

23. If it isn't about teabaggers getting elected this year they don't care

Pakistan and Haiti simply aren't election season material.

And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually serious. If Pakistan could be turned into a wedge issue it would be front and center.

[sabrina 1]

31. Yes, this teabagger 'movement' is a fake grassroots

movement but it is being covered as if it was a legitimate organization. I saw an article by Ed Rollins yesterday claiming that they are revolutionizing the electoral process and are 'winning' all over the place so political pundits should not even try to predict the outcome of the November elections anymore as the tea-partiers are the ones who will probably determine that.

It's as if the media from the beginning were complicit in helping to push this fake effort forward. As if the current Republican Party was not already bought completely.

[northernlights]

63. exactly.

It's not teabagger election material.

It *is* about climate change. Anything that proves climate change beyond reasonable doubt cannot be mentioned. And it *is* legitimately terrifying, because that could easily be us...and sooner or later will be as runaway warming accelerates. As well as the drought and fires in Russia. Desertification. Etc.

[Recursion]

24. Huh? I've heard at least 4 hours of coverage this past week alone

OK, one of those was on BBC, but there was an hour on Diane Rehm or Tom Ashbrook (I forget which, and if one did it that usually means the other will in a few days) plus a lot of boots-on-the-ground reportage and interviews.

[sabrina 1]

25. The disaster is in its fourth week.

I did not see those reports you mention, but just watching the news each night, I see nothing about this, except once in a while. There was some coverage when Kerry was there, but nothing like the coverage a story like this warrants.

If they just covered it from a Climate Change angle, including the mudslides in China and the forest fires in Russia and all the other disasters around the world. But this one seems to symbolize the Pentagon's report and fears of the results of global warming with large numbers of people being displaced, resulting in food riots and other violence.

This is one of the most important stories happening right now. It warrants a lot more coverage than it has received so far.

[ThomWV]

26. Because there are no 17-year-old blond girls there.

Any place that has no 17-year-old blond girls, none at all, has no relation to us, none at all. It may as well be another planet for all we care. In fact its worse than that, if it was another planet at least the Discovery Channel would have made some pseudo-science TV program about it.

[sabrina 1]

27. I have no doubt that you are probably right to an extent. I always

wonder why it has to be a blond, especially since most of them are fake blonds. And I think that Pakistani women are beautiful. Maybe they need to hire a PR firm. We hired one to sell the war, which I think is obscene.

[Ignis]

28. K&R

But it's probably (as ThomWV said above) due to the lack of blond teenagers. :(

[otohara]

30. It's So Obvious

Instead of winning hearts and minds, our hateful media focuses on the extremist white folks freaking out over a community center. Dividing American's seems to be the goal the media is reaching for and succeeding.

[sabrina 1]

35. So true, and you can the result of this propaganda

in comments on every article relating to this disaster on major news sites. And, apparently that influences news media as to how they cover a story, according the Huffpo blogger in my OP.

Sometimes you feel that the world is regressing instead of progressing and it's very disheartening.

[OhioChick]

34. K&R

Bookmarked for later.

Thanks for posting!

[Turborama]

36. I had AC360 on in the background and during the whole hour not one word from Sanjay Gupta

I wonder if he's done anything on any other CNN shows...

In fact, there was not one word about the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Pakistan during the whole show.

[sabrina 1]

37. I did a search to see where he was and couldn't find anything.

That was early this morning though. I am surprised that his going to Pakistan is not being mentioned by Anderson Cooper. I haven't seen any TV today so I cannot say if it was mentioned in the news.

[Turborama]

38. Racism

There. I've said it.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes, but people will argue that there was a huge response

to the Haiti disaster. And to the Tsunami. Shouldn't racism have played a role in those disasters?

My own opinion is that it could have but the media coverage was so good that it became secondary to the story itself.

However, the U.S., while the response was incredible and the tv coverage, did not allow Haitians into the country permanently despite conditions in Haiti.

I do believe that the current anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. is part of the reason. I've seen it in comments attached to articles about Pakistan. However I do think that if this disaster had been covered the way Haiti was, the racist voices would be diminished by the many people who would react positively as happened with Haiti. There were racist comments on Haiti, but we hardly noticed as the overwhelmingly positive media coverage, the humanization of the victims, connected people to the victims in a very human way.

I think the same thing would happen with this story, if the media had been covering it the same way they covered Haiti, eg. Just my opinion, and I am not at all denying that racism towards Muslims is sadly fairly widespread in this country right now.

[Turborama]

40. It was in answer to this question...

"Why Is The U.S. Press Ignoring Pakistan’s Devastating, Dangerous Floods?"

To be fair, NYT have done a great job covering this. Take a look at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/27/world/asia/27FloodSlideshow.html">their latest slide show, for example. But as far as I can tell they are the only American mainstream media organization that are.


The Haiti disaster was close enough not to be too difficult to do, logistically and financially so it seemed worth it. Also, as with the Tsunami, it was an instant monumental event, which attracted instant global attention.

The Tsunami was historically enormous, shocking in it's monumental immediacy and was covered by global media - the news of which was fed from multiple sources. However, I don't remember seeing Anderson Cooper in any of the locations (I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am).

At the end of the day, the American media have asked themselves, "Is the devastation of people's lives in Pakistan worth our time and money?" and they have come up with the answer, no.

If they had covered (are covering) it the same way as you mention above (in the post I'm replying to), the reaction by American viewers would most certainly be the same, as you said.

Sadly, the American mainstream news media have decided that Pakistanis aren't worth the time, money or effort to cover it. Hence, the racism charge.

However, other mainstream news organizations have; such as the BBC, Al Jazeera English ITN and several others.

[sabrina 1]

41. If you read the second paragraph of the excerpt from

the HuffPo link in the OP, the author confirms basically what you are saying. He said that he has covered many, many disasters but when the Kashmir Earthquake happened he was receiving nasty emails such as 'why should we help 'those people' and a decision was made not to get involved.

The press most likely responds to the public sentiment also. I wonder if because of all the anti-Muslim rhetoric which THEY cover, they are getting a lot of nasty mail and calls. And if so, have they assumed that this reflects the public in general. I hope not, but wouldn't be surprised and that would be encouraging a very dangerous bigotry. If anything they should expose it.

I have zero doubt that racism is part of the reason for the lack of interest in helping. And the belief that 'all Muslims are terrorists'. The propaganda to get support for the wars was very effective. And it's sad that people were so easily manipulated as it shows that this racism was there under the surface all along.

[Turborama]

42. Sanjay Gupta on CNN International earlier (Video). Anyone seen this on US CNN?

Added On August 27, 2010
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports how poor conditions and short supplies doom some sick children in Pakistan's flood zone.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/08/27/gupta.pakistan.flood.issues.cnn?hpt=T1

[sabrina 1]

43. No, I have not seen him yet. Maybe he's only there for

CNN International?

[Turborama]

44. It was all back to front, again

Anderson Cooper spent the 1st half of the show getting all worked up about some Black Caucus sponsorship money being embezzled and then the last 5 minutes of the show Sanjay Gupta did a good report from Pakistan.

However, as they were quickly running out of time, the follow up interview was extremely rushed and he didn't get enough time to properly explain what he was witnessing.

I'll add the video and transcript when someone uploads them.

[Kaleva]

45. The media will cover what people are interested in.

They are in business to make a profit and higher ratings increases profits. Covering a story that people aren't interested in will lower ratings and thus decrease profits.

[Turborama]

46. You've got it backwards

The media create the interest.

It's not like they can know by osmosis "what the people are interested in", is it.

[Kaleva]

47. The media didn't create the interest in the murder of JFK or the moon landings

My guess is that even here at DU, there are far more threads about former Senator Simpson's use of the word "tits" then there are about the misery of the Pakistani people.

[Turborama]

50. Of course Americans are going to be "interested" in the assassination of their president

And landing on the moon, that goes without saying.

Mind you, if there had been no coverage about either of those events no-one would have known they had happened until it had reached them via word of mouth.

My guess is that the reason DU has far more threads about former Senator Simpson's use of the word "tits" versus the ongoing historical humanitarian crisis in Pakistan is because the *American* main stream media have focused on the former and ignored the latter.

This is because:

A) The media in America is completely America-centric and stories like that are cheap/easy to do.

and

B) Are ignoring the latter because it's too expensive for them to cover and they, as decision makers, don't really care enough about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9042472">millions of Pakistani children in a severely perilous condition to think it's worth the cost of time/effort/money. Whether or not they assume the rest of America will feel the same way seems to be irrelevant.

Let me give you a contemporary example. If "the media" (meaning American media) had ignored the earthquake in Haiti, how much "interest" do you think there would have been in America?

I'll answer that with a rhetorical question. How could there be "interest" if they didn't know anything about it from "the media"?

I'll leave you with a few questions.

When the famine happened in Ethiopia in the 1980s, what was it that created the global "interest"?

What played a crucial role in the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s?

And, finally, have you read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9018714&mesg_id=9020555">post 29 yet?

[Kaleva]

53. However, the conventional wisdom here...

is that the average DUer doesn't rely on the MSM for their news. Your argument is that what ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN covers is what drives what is discussed here at DU. It may be that the average DUer is no more well informed and is just as America-centric as the average Fox viewer. We just happily delude ourselves into thinking it's otherwise.

[Turborama]

54. I haven't mentioned Fox so that comparison is not valid

and is in fact what's known as a straw man argument.

"It maybe that the average DUer is no more well informed and is just as America-centric as the average Fox viewer."

I think it's fair to say that the "average DUer" watches TV (which is, by and large, America-centric) aka the "mainstream media" and get a lot of their "news" from there.

Let me ask you another question, where do you think the DUers who are starting and contributing to the numerous threads about former Senator Simpson's use of the word "tits" you speak of got that information from in the 1st place?

Let's look at it like this, if Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric for that matter were in Pakistan right now doing daily hour long live specials I can assure you that the "interest" on DU would be a lot different. However, the original question in the OP wasn't asking about DU's reaction, even though it does seem to be an unfortunate symptom of the lack of attention the American media is giving to the evolving humanitarian crisis in Pakistan.

What about those questions I asked you?

[Kaleva]

58. I can only speak for myself.

I get my news almost exclusively from Late Breaking News and from what is posted in GD and GDP. I haven't watched regular network news or bought a newspaper in years. While I didn't join until early 2008, I was lurking here following the election in 2004 and spent election night here.

"I haven't mentioned Fox so that comparison is not valid "

You didn't specifically exclude Fox News either.

As for my statement "It maybe that the average DUer is no more well informed and is just as America-centric as the average Fox viewer.", one can replace Fox viewer with CNN viewer and my argument remains the same.

I was a member of the Howard Dean forum back when it looked like he was going to cruise to the nomination in 2004. The forum was so busy, it was impossible for me to read all the new posts made daily. Then the campaign began to run into problems and members started to drop out. Some said their goodbyes while most just disappeared. Towards the end, there were only a handful of us left until finally one day when I attempted to log on, the site was shut down.
Some have argued that Dean was destroyed by the MSM but there were posts made at the Dean forum by volunteers who worked in Iowa who described the Dean campaign there as something of a cluster fuck. IMO, the Dean campaign made some fatal mistakes and this lead to the losses in Iowa and New Hampshire which then caused his supporters to abandon him and news coverage of his campaign to plumment. I recall reading a article posted at the forum where Dean made a speech in Wisconsin to a half filled high school auditorium where the audience was described as "polite". A far cry from just a couple of months earlier when he spoke to large, enthusiastic crowds.

[Turborama]

59. If you're going to stick with that argument

I'm not going to argue with you about it because without doing some polls about it, which the majority of DUers participate in, we won't really know.

As for me, I'm an expat living outside of America so I get my TV news from Al Jazeera English, BBC World, CNN International and Sky News. Faux is available here and I have an occasional look to see what the enemy is doing behind the lines, as it were.DW-TV (German news in English) and Russia Today have just been made available here but I haven't looked at them yet.

My internet sources are mainly (in no specific order) TPM, Think Progress, Media Matters, online newspapers (NYT, The Guardian, LA Times, Washington Post etc), LBN, the videos forum, the Environment/Energy forum, GD/GDP and Google news alerts. Oh, and I have several news sites added as "gadgets" to my iGoogle homepage which self refreshes.

[Kaleva]

60. I think there were some polls done here at DU...

which asked where members got the the majority of their news from but I'd have to search to find out for sure. As for your other questions you've asked me but I haven't answered, I'm too tired to spend the proper time on them to do them justice.

[sabrina 1]

49. Except that is not the function of a free press in a democracy.

To maintain a democratic system it is essential to have a free press, NOT influenced by profits or political idealogy. What you are saying is that you have accepted the death of the free press in the U.S. I agree that what you stated is how things work. But I think it is worse than that. Today's media in the U.S. is basically an arm of the government, just as the Russian press was the propaganda arm of the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.

[Kaleva]

55. I don't know of a time when the US had a press....

not influenced by profits or political ideology. Newspapers in this nation's early years were clearly partisan and would publish stories that promoted the agenda of the owner(s). It's sometimes argued that the Spanish-American War was a media driven event. Also, there was no media effort to fact check Polk's reasons for starting the Mexican-American War.

[sabrina 1]

56. You may be right, but there were publications and even TV and Radio

news anchors in the past who managed to break through the filter of the corporate media. Eg, during the Bush administration the U.S. media ranked so low on the scale of the World's free press (approx #53 airc) that we were rivaled only by third world oppressive regimes.

The advent of Fox news dealt a fatal blow to the media here. Rather than compete with what is essentially nothing more than pure propaganda, the rest of the media attempted to compete with Fox in a rush to the bottom of the cesspool that is now the U.S. media.

The only hope is the Internet and few decent publications in the print medium which may or may not survive. But as long as we have the media we have today, there is little hope of maintaining any semblance of democracy. That is why it was possible for Bush to drag this country into two wasteful and illigitimate wars. No one dared to tell the truth about the lies.

[Turborama]

57. "A rush to the bottom of the cesspool" = Appealing to the lowest common denominator

I was outside of America during the build up to the illegal invasion of Iraq and was astonished by poll numbers that were coming out showing Americans' attitudes and lack of knowledge of what was really going on. I think we can all agree with the fact that this lack of knowledge about what was really going on can be laid at the feet of America's media (mainly TV). But all the Americans who have changed their minds since the build up to that invasion and subsequent bloodbath are doing so only in hindsight with knowledge of facts they should have known at the time. It's too late, the war in Afghanistan ended up being forgotten by most which has led to the current situation there and there's an estimated 1,000,000 dead Iraqis now because the majority of Americans were uncritically led by the nose into that war.

Similarly, today I think a parallel can be drawn with what's happening with the lack of coverage America's TV news is giving to the catastrophe which has unfolded and is still getting worse in Pakistan. The lack of knowledge being provided to the American people about what is going on in there has shaped people's attitudes towards it. Again, hindsight doesn't bring people back to life or solve geopolitical problems that occur after the event.

(edited to remove errant apostrophe)

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Haiti was actually an exception to US Press coverage of

foreign events. There is the US... then there is the scary outside world. We mostly do not do the scary outside world. It is expensive, and it is not safe... and it might make the average provincial american thing about the outside world. It is more complex than this. But this is the core issue.

[sabrina 1]

51. Good points. We are very insulated from the rest of the world.

When you travel abroad, one of the things that strikes you is how informed the average foreigner is about US, and how much information they have about issues in this country. But for the most part, Americans who rely on the U.S. media for information are very uninformed. Which is why it was so easy to lead the people into the War in Iraq. We knew nothing about that part of the world and the propaganda had nothing to counter it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I travel to Mexico every so often

and even CNN-I is far better than even NPR.

[KharmaTrain]

62. American Myopia...If It Doesn't Affect Us It Doesn't Exist...

"News" in our media only happens when they choose to send their cameras there. Since Pakistan is on the other side of the world and, except for the Islamophobists, has little in common with this country (and by and large have a negative image among most Americans) their disaster is of little interests to those who'd rather scream about Shtich Dreck and a "mosque" at Ground Zero. Since we have few cameras and even fewer real journalists in that part of the world, what the corporate doesn't see doesn't happen.

[Turborama]

64. Yep

You pretty much nailed it.