Back on topic - hopefully.

I disagree with you, Skybird.

Admittedly, I can only refer to English language media. I find every English language publication you listed - perhaps excluding the NY Post - to underplay Islamic attacks worldwide. That doesn't mean they're unreported, although that, too is often the case. The stories are shoved way back on page 30 in printed versions, barely make the headlines list on their Internet home pages. As for TV, it is often that incidents go completely unreported.

Here's but a most recent example: When Does a Massacre Matter?.

I follow several media watch blogs and reports and this is far far from a unique case. It happens all the time.

Could it be that people don't know what they're missing? Sounds about right to me.

And when these events are reported, they are often reported with a slant (another example from the NY Times)or overshadowed by some other event the media wishes to use as a distraction. Sorry, I can't be bothered to post links to what amount to hundreds of such reports on the media over the last few years. It would make for a great term paper some college student. But it was a cinch posting the links I included above and in previous posts, just a sampling from only very recent events.

That's the way I see it.

But this is all biased interpretation anyway ont he parts of AL and WG. What they perceive as paramount news goes unreported. Some people want other things to get more reporting. That its reported isn't the question, as AL said. Its about it not being given the weight that some think it deserves. And why? Must every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center? Why are then Islamic atrocities so significant? There are atrocities all over the world that aren't even reported. Ask someone about East Timor and see how many strangers you'll go through before you get more than a quizzical look.

Once again its a matter of spin. So what if it isn't on page 1 or 2 or 3? If someone wants to know they'll go looking for it. And thanks to CNN and Fox News you always hear for 5 hours about the latest terrorist attack or attempt. I remember browsing the news channels in the immediate aftermath of the recent London car bombs. After a few hours CBC moved on to other stories but still updated, so did BBC. But CNN just kept going and going and going, repeating irrelavent information and interviewing people with only vague conjecture to offer.

But again, if you care then you will find the information. Those taht don't care will just gloss over it anyw ay if its upfront. And if you feel the need to have the population so carefully controlled in their thought impulses then you have an odd argument on your hands, but that I don't suspect is what you mean, AL.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Shoe.

Other.

Foot.
Though sometimes true, I said much more, even when stories are reported.
Can't speak for others but I never said that.
Go figure.
Again, not speaking for others, I pointed out the slant of what is reported, lopsidedly so, of stories no more or less significant.
Ask someone about East Timor and see how many strangers you'll go through before you get more than a quizzical look.
But it is the other way around. Much of the west has been made numb and ignorant by major media that has many times twisted the truth and subdued facts.

I'll finish here.

You dismiss my point far too quickly. I don't mean just to say that i think you're reaching with your statements. I mean also that it is a normal impulse in people to want to see what they think is important given more weight.

You said both so lets split the difference.

Again I'll point out that if people wanted to care they'd find the correct unbiased information. I assume that you know what they don't because you found reliable sources. I don't suspect that you do your own journalistic digging every day to learn everthing. Surely you aren't at the sight of every terrorist attack in the Islamic world or everywhere else that sees one too.

Ignorance in adults is a choice. Children learn from their parents. The information is present enough to give people a chance to know about it. News as a rule is general and if you want more you dig (like turning to A16 to finish the remaining 3/4 of the article from the front page).

Some people tell me politics are boring, that they dont vote cause they don't care. It doesn't matter which paper they read or who wrote it. They don't care. And if they want to persist in thinking twisted versions of reality then they will. We live in the computer age. Theres the information in most anyones home or at the library.

I'm not saying that journalistic integrity isn't an issue, but if we really cared then we'd make it harder for corporations to buyup every news outlet and dilute the stories into easy to hear unboring exiting drivel.

The inverse is no less true. Hence my response to you.
I did not say that "every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center."
This statement alone is a mouthful.
But I do too easily find people pointing out the innacuracies and much worse in many major newswire reports and mass media outlets. This happens pretty much day by day.
There is ignorance due to disinterest. There is ignorance due to disinformation. My claim is the masses are poorly informed and sometimes intentionally kept ignorant.
What if their information suppliers are simply unreliable and unprofessional?
That's easy and that's only a fraction of my point.