From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 02:31:18 MST
Mike Lorrey writes
> A rather large percent of the population of the US was born elsewhere,
> and the US remains far more ethnically diverse than Oz, or Canada, or
> Britain, all countries claiming to be more cosmopolitan than the US, so
> that ain't it.
>
> Oz, like Canada, are rather miniscule population wise compared to the
> US, less than 10% of our population. So there is an automatic limiter
> on how much stuff goes on in those countries.
Well, if we say that the
U.S. is 286 million,
Canada 31 million
Great Britain 60 million
Australia 19 million
Ireland 6 million
New Zealand 4 million
(the best I could do), then we have the U.S. comprising 286/406
or 70 percent of the Anglosphere.
> Here in the US, first we have our local coverage, then there is the
> national coverage, which affords 10-20 times more content than the
> local coverage generates (a large part of which is filtered out due to
> lack of local interest), and only then do we get to 'international'
> news, which is of even less interest than other areas of our own
> country.
Yes, but my focus in starting this thread was originally
on how accurate the U.S. media is when reporting on
international events. I've only tabulated 2 days worth
of comparisons between the New York Times, and Melbourne's
The Age, so I'll restrain my comments now.
> Beyond this, keep in mind that the US produces more media content than
> most other nations combined. Once we've waded through our own, there is
> precious little time for hearing about the rest of you, much as you all
> do your best to force yourselves upon us....
I assume you're joking. Or being wry. In any case, there are
good explanations as to why Americans have a history of isolation,
and not needing to glance outside their own borders a lot. But
in trying to ascertain the truth about certain international
incidents, this is hardly an advantage.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 02:27:56 MST