News ignored by the mainstream media...

[George L. Singleton]

...if you feel this better belongs in another spot no problem, but to me this is the sort of news story in the Peshawar FRONTIER POST today, Tuesday, March 10, 2009 which is elsewhere, worldwide, often overlooked.

Mamond Tribesmen sign peace agreement with Govt F.P. Report

KHAR: "The Tribesmen in Bajaur Agency signed a deal with government on Monday, promising not to shelter militants in the area on the Afghan border where peace has been restored after truce pact. About 900 prominent elders belonging to Mamond tribe, in a grand jirga, held in populated Mamond valley, signed a 28-point pact with the authorities aiming at maintaining peace. They would also supplement Government efforts for the development of the region... He said the persons who had handed over their weapons should register their names with the elders of the tribe and the tribe would be bound to take the responsibility... Pinpointing the other features of the truce, he said that no foreigners including Afghans would be provided shelter. There would be no attacks on hospitals, schools or check posts. The security forces would be facing no hindrance during their movement. All the foreign contractors working in the area, would be provided full protection. No official and security forces would be kidnapped."

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News....at=ts&nid=4302

The last time the local tribesman were disarmed they were then unable to defend themselves from Taliban attacks on their homes and families. There is a degree of wishful thinking, to me insanity, to the core of this wished for peaceful outcome...as this whole region is based on self defense with home owned weaponry, and that fact in many lifetimes to come will not change.

These Pukhtuns stopped using the old doubled ended "wolf axes" many years ago and shifted to guns.

[BayonetBrant]

Y'know, if you really want to bang the drum on mainstream media ignoring news that matters, you ought to ask why there's been no reporting at all (outside of The Economist) of Chinalco's purchase of a huge stake in Rio Tinto during the latter's attempt to fend off a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you're making my point for me.

Bashing the media is like picking on Microsoft. It's so big there's no way you can't find something to pick on. But to chalk it all up to some major back-room conspiracy that somehow touches every outlet in the country is giving a balkanized industry way, waaaaaay too much credit for being that organized, devious, and competent.

[George L. Singleton]

Interesting point of view. But I have "fought" the war on terrorism on the Internet now since 9/11 via publications in THE ECONOMIST, THE FRONTIER POST, THE DAWN, THE TIMES OF INDIA, and THE MOSCOW TIMES. Yet our domestic media is "just lately" become aware that the seat of the terrorism problem has always been in northern Pakistan.

What a surprise! Of course the Western and particularly the US media has been focused on other topics, and in the UK only recently is the BBC now starting to use the term "terrorist" which formerly was a verbotten word there.

We all have our points of view, and I think mine fit where little publicized news events best fit on SWJ which is a daily more widely read source of hot news and discussion vs. the mainstream media, anyway.

Hurray for the SWJ, and the many points of view on it!

[Ken White]

when referring to what the media had done -- or, in this case, as so many, not done. Bayonet Brant's example also mentions something not done. I think ignored is the right word

I'm inclined to agree with him -- there is no media conspiracy but the practitioners therein do tend to think alike (and I use the word think rather loosely...) and ignore a lot of things they either do not understand or that are inimical to their collective worldview.

The problem is not conspiracy -- it's ignorance. They're mostly pretty incompetent.

[J Wolfsberger]

I was living in N. Alabama when Katrina hit. The news from local sources gave a very different picture of events than what was streaming out from the national outlets. I agree with Bayonet's point, and think that a grand conspiracy of all media strains credulity. On the other hand, I disagree to the extent that a smaller number of editors and publishers at the national level can't establish narratives that further a common agenda.

As an example, the coverage of successes in Iraq and Afghanistan is exclusively local and blog. (OK, a little bit on Fox.) Maybe I missed them, but I don't recall even hearing of stories on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, etc. about the reduction in violence and return to normalcy in Iraq following the change in strategy and increased troop strength. Instead, Iraq just dropped out of the national news.

We can take today as a test. Will the national media cover today's bombing as out of character for the changes that have taken place, or will they use it to further their agenda?

NYT: "Bomber Kills Dozens in Iraq as Fears of New Violence Rise" (And I'll claim my point as proved.)

[Jedburgh]

....there is no media conspiracy but the practitioners therein do tend to think alike (and I use the word think rather loosely...) and ignore a lot of things they either do not understand or that are inimical to their collective worldview.

The problem is not conspiracy -- it's ignorance. They're mostly pretty incompetent.

What I feel is missing from this statement is consideration of plain ol' marketing factors. The media is a for-profit industry and they produce what they perceive people want. Being as their bottom-line rides on what people watch, read or listen to, they do pay a lot of attention to these things and monitor it continuously - like Wal-Mart monitors what's flowing off of its shelves in order to structure its purchase orders. So, when we toss out the "ignorance" label, we have to apply it just broadly to the consumer - the American people.

The consumer as the driver for media has become even more critical to the industry these days, as traditional media is challenged by the 'net and all that goes along with it. Some are doing well, many are struggling, and not a few have already died. You cannot underestimate the influence of the consumer on how and what news is produced, IMHO.

The old cliche If it bleeds it leads is a truism - people in general are simply more drawn to the vicarious thrills of negative news than they are to positive news. Look to the content of television programming and the various show ratings for an example of how much people enjoy seeing others' misery.

Couple the above with the general ignorance and apathy of mainstream America for what occurs outside our borders, and you have the resulting pathetic excuse for media reporting that exists in this country. Unless there is a substantive change in the general public's news consumption habits, there will be no positive change in the reporting (positive, in this case, according to the perceptions of those posting in this thread). Blaming "the media", only goes so far.

[J Wolfsberger]

What I feel is missing from this statement is consideration of plain ol' marketing factors. The media is a for-profit industry and they produce what they perceive people want. Being as their bottom-line rides on what people watch, read or listen to, they do pay a lot of attention to these things and monitor it continuously - like Wal-Mart monitors what's flowing off of its shelves in order to structure its purchase orders. So, when we toss out the "ignorance" label, we have to apply it just broadly to the consumer - the American people.

The consumer as the driver for media has become even more critical to the industry these days, as traditional media is challenged by the 'net and all that goes along with it. Some are doing well, many are struggling, and not a few have already died. You cannot underestimate the influence of the consumer on how and what news is produced, IMHO.

The old cliche If it bleeds it leads is a truism - people in general are simply more drawn to the vicarious thrills of negative news than they are to positive news. Look to the content of television programming and the various show ratings for an example of how much people enjoy seeing others' misery.

Couple the above with the general ignorance and apathy of mainstream America for what occurs outside our borders, and you have the resulting pathetic excuse for media reporting that exists in this country. Unless there is a substantive change in the general public's news consumption habits, there will be no positive change in the reporting (positive, in this case, according to the perceptions of those posting in this thread). Blaming "the media", only goes so far.

I agree with most of your points. However, you don't seem to be properly accounting for the dramatic decline in readership/viewership for the Big Media that Ken and I are writing about. That can only be explained as a market rejection of the product being sold, in this case advocacy "journalism." I think the population deserves more credit than you're giving them.