March 26, 2008

Why oh why oh why indeed?

Is this Glenn Reynolds post a plea for more coverage of Tibet or less of Palestine?

GOOD QUESTION:  Why Do Palestinians Get Much More Attention than Tibetans?

But, just perhaps, the Israel-Palestine question receives lots of coverage because it's a question, at root, of competing rights, not because the media has an incurably anti-Israeli bias or is, in this instance at any rate, acting in an especially hypocritical fashion.

The other answer, of course, is that readers, are much more interested in the Middle East than they are in China and Tibet and, consequently, this is just market forces at work. Shocking!

26 Mar 2008 02:47:59 | China, Hackery, Israel

2 Comments

ndm

One significant difference is that not many public intellectuals support the Chinese occupation of Tibet, either implicitly or explicitly.

Posted by: ndm | March 26, 2008 at 08:17 PM

Pandora Bracelets

Pandora may perhaps be within antithetical clues, flowers plus animal imprints, representations, zodiac indicators, colors as well as substances that give you unlimited selections together with combination.Relating to Pandora Jewellery , the beads shift freely additionally rotate slightly with your wrists motion, creating the undeniable observation catching in combination with stunning influence.Pandora Bracelets has granted women globally the to be able to wear their personal report to lifes wonderful moments, thereby become component of their amazing story about romantic besides fun moments forever. Because Pandora style may very well be so private and distinctive, it can be a trend among women all over the world. Pandora bracelet fans emerge from worldwide and variety Pandora Necklace holics clubs or associations for exhibit their want to the irresistible gifts when using the gods.

Posted by: Pandora Bracelets | February 22, 2011 at 07:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
A New Cultural Revolution I wish this surprised or even shocked me. True, this is Dundee, but even so... Six young brothers and sisters face being taken from their parents and put into care because they are overweight. Social workers have warned they will intervene if three of the youngsters – including a 12-year-old boy who weighs 16 stone – do not shed several pounds in three months. The parents have been told they risk losing all their children if there is no improvement in the 12-year-old or two of his sisters aged 11 and three – who weigh 12 stone and four stone – by June. The family have also been ordered to send their children to dance and football* lessons to help them lose weight. The shocking development highlights Britain's childhood obesity crisis, which has already forced those as young as 13 to seek NHS weight-loss surgery. Emphasis added, of course, since Britain's interfering government crisis would make more sense. Even if you granted the council's interest in monitoring the weight of the three fat kids (which obviously I would not) how can anyone defend removing from their parents the three children who do not appear to be obese? One has little...
PREVIOUS POST
Craven Research Can't Possibly Harm Your Throat It's entirely possible that the research cited in this New York Times story has been corrupted by the fact that it seems to have been sponsored, in part or at "arm's length" , by a tobacco company. That's fine. But I would have thought a more useful article would have spent its time demonstrating that this researcher's conclusions were, on the evidence, bunk rather than seeking to dismiss them on the grounds of where their funding came from. Or, to put it another way, can we expect the NYT, or any other newspaper, to treat smoking-related claims made by government or other branches of the health industry that have just an obvious agenda with quite the same degree of skepticism? Of course smoking can help cause cancer and other nasty, painful diseases that can kill you. But if research sponsored by ASH or the American Cancer Society isn't immediately or automatically useless even if it doesn't endorse one's own particular prejudices then isn't it possible that the same could be true of research funded by cigarette manufacturers? In other words, the fact that research is "tainted" by tobacco money is not necessarily proof that an individual finding is bunk even...

alex massie

Search

My Online Status

Recent Comments