100,000 monks/citizens protest military junta in Myanmar

[IggyWH]

This [censored] is just beyond crazy to me.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]

It's normally used in the context of the Palestinian uprisings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a comparison with Palestinians make for an "abhorrent slur"? You seem to be getting worked up over more than just a point of fact about the degree of violence used as part of a protest. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[imitation]

This has been big news around Australia, I'm really interested to see how China can control this situation with diplomatic pressure, as I think in the last year with Korea and now this that China really is the super power of the world because Asia and the middle east are the important areas of the 21st century.

[mmbt0ne]

khaos,

so you're upset that Entertainment Weekly and The Onion decided not to cover the Myanmar situation?

[El Diablo]

All: http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/ - another information source

Khaos: While your point that this is not getting much coverage in the US is valid, your screencap actually showed this as the top story in latest news.

All: Please try to keep discussion in this thread civil and informative.

[gumpzilla]

I have paid very little attention to this before today, but I was aware something was going on, and casual glances at the Post and NYT show a couple of editorials or prominent stories on Burma/Myanmar. It seems to me that railing about a lack of coverage for this event, then, just signals laziness or disinterest, since anybody posting in this thread has access to all kinds of news sources if they just cared to look, and restricting it to "US media" seems artificial. So the complaining about it strikes me as coming from the standpoint "GOD DAMN YOU MASS MEDIA YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EDUCATING ME DESPITE MYSELF." Should that be the goal?

EDIT: Also, I think staying abreast of world affairs is a pretty serious time commitment. I could easily imagine spending 5-10% of my waking hours each week on it and still having a pretty superficial picture. So, where should we set the bar?

[SL__72]

If the main news sources were better at reporting the world news then that 5-10% would probably be cut down to 2-3%. The fact that the news is available to us by searching down blogs doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to just have it included in the "News."

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
If the main news sources were better at reporting the world news then that 5-10% would probably be cut down to 2-3%. The fact that the news is available to us by searching down blogs doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to just have it included in the "News."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true. I subscribed to the Economist for a little while, and reading just the first half of the magazine dedicated to world news every week would frequently take me on the order of an hour and a half to two hours, and I'm a fast reader. If you then throw in reading one or two prominent newspapers a day (let alone actually spending time thinking about this stuff instead of just getting the most basic facts), it adds up quickly.

[WhoIam]

I watched an Aussie program about this and they placed most of the blame for the regime on ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) for not imposing sanctions etc. This would be incredibly hypocritical considering how the member nations are run. Just off the top of my head:
Thailand: currently ruled by military junta
Laos: Single-party state with limited freedom
Vietnam: Single-party state with limited freedom
Singapore: authoritarian technocrocy

People have also been blaming China for not pressuring Myanmar to allow these demonstrations. I think we can all see the irony here.

[Khaos4k]

While, yes, it is in the top news, that is definetely not what I saw first. The page design leads your eye to the entertainment news before the real news. I think it's disgusting either way.