Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberxxx
So I really can't answer to it. I can just see the facts (the western media hasn't said a word during almost 24 hours while South Ossetians and Russian peace keepers were bombed with Georgian "Grads"), but I don't know the reasons.
|
There are conflicts all over the globe every day with little or no reporting. There is daily carnage in Africa for example. Face it, "South Ossetia vs Georgia" is hardly newsworthy. Throw in the Russians and now you have something of interest. Same thing with any number of conflicts around the globe. How much do you read about Sri Lanka vs. Tamil Eelan or Algeria vs the Armed Islamic Group. We hardly have any reporting of the situation in Darfur despite hundreds of thousands dead. Really, the reporting is limited. Why? Because it has only limited influence on our politics. There have been hundreds of such conflicts that garner close to zero interest until a world power gets involved. Then interest increases and news coverage along with it.
As far as the particular situation, there were hardly any western reporters in georgia or even interested in georgia two weeks ago. Why? Because there weren't hundreds of Russian tanks poring across the border. At first the only information that is available is AP or reuters news wires, often just press releases by the parties involved. Everyone echoes everyone else because there is no additional information. Soon after there are phone interviews and then you begin to hear different points of view. Eventually western reporters arrive on the scene, people read differing opinions, Op/ED pieces appear in the WSJ, NYT and so on. Western media is vast. There are 1500 daily newspapers in the United States alone, hundreds of weekly and monthly news periodicals, television news, radio news blogs and so on. You can read pieces in say Bloomberg and the LA Times today that present a different view than was available just a few days ago.