> A MintPress News analysis found that in a single week Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC ran almost 1,300 separate stories on the Ukraine invasion, two stories on the Syria attack, one on Somalia, and none at all on the Saudi-led war on Yemen.
How odd - all the media they list are American. I guess it's okay for media in other parts of the world to focus on their locale and allies, but Western media must cover the globe evenly?
It's also odd they didn't complain about, e.g., BLM-related incidents getting disproportionate coverage versus the many atrocities taking place in the world. Was ignoring the world okay then, but not now?
Not because of an adversarial nuclear power is invading a country that has been making inroads to join NATO and the EU and other western systems.
Not because of the similarities to appeasement of hitler, or the massive influence Russia/Ukraine events have had on the US political system recently during the Trump administration and for decades in general.
At least the article is pretty clear that, while some claim it is simply racism, it's more likely that it's who the US officially supports and who is the enemy.
Or rather, who is the victim and who is the aggressor. There are even bullet points on these.
To anyone not realising that, you are living in the bubble. ;)
How odd - all the media they list are American. I guess it's okay for media in other parts of the world to focus on their locale and allies, but Western media must cover the globe evenly?
It's also odd they didn't complain about, e.g., BLM-related incidents getting disproportionate coverage versus the many atrocities taking place in the world. Was ignoring the world okay then, but not now?