Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Taleban Spreading In Pakistan

This is a real problem.  Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear nation. 

image

A map produced by the BBC suggests only 38% of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and surrounding areas is under full government control.

(13) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0711 hrs
Foreign Affairs

  1. Apparently Barry doesn’t think so…. to quote my favorite video game - this is the way the world ends…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 0758 hrs


  2. But all the news wants to carry are details on American Idol and their haircuts.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1012 hrs


  3. Moonbats blaming Bush in 3..2..1…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1014 hrs


  4. But all the news wants to carry are details on American Idol and their haircuts.

    A quick Google search turns up 3,091 stories about Pakistan and the Taliban from U.S. media outlets alone in just the past week. American Idol? 349 stories.

    So yes, the media are covering important stories like this. You’re just echoing blogosphere soundbites.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1140 hrs


  5. Sorry, I was unclear.  The TV news wants to focus on American Idol (at least the Milwaukee stations for some odd reason)

    I keep Google news open and it does have a plethora of articles regarding Pakistan and the Taliban.

    Point I was going for is there are 10 times more articles on Pakistan and the Taliban than there are on American Idol, but the TV news wants to devote the opposite ratio to their coverage.

    I was just apalled at the lengthy pieces last night on Danny’s haircut and barely a mention of anything going on in Pakistan.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1209 hrs


  6. I thought Dear Leader was gonna invade “Pack-ee-staan”?

    Seriously, this is potentially a huge problem.  If those crazies get their hands on nukes we’re in big trouble!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1226 hrs


  7. Ulic, thanks for the clarification. You’re right, there’s a huge difference between the stories covered by different kinds of media outlets. Local TV news is increasingly about keeping people glued to the TV with soundbites, drama and celebrity, but the big newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times still do in-depth reporting about stuff that actually matters. That’s why I get frustrated when people lump them all together as “the mainstream media.” I believe the media can still do a very good job of reporting the important stories of the day, like the one in this post, but fewer and fewer people are paying attention (and the reason for that is another story).

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1234 hrs


  8. I’d agree with you, NYTexan.  Different forms of media have different characteristics.  I will say that I have become increasingly reliant on foreign media to adequately cover world affairs.  The American media in general does a poor job at this because they often neglect the local forces at play.  Everything goes through the prism of American politics.  I think this is one of the unfortunate results of so many American media outlets scaling back or eliminating their overseas offices.

    Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1251 hrs


  9. Owen, it’s true that the American media have scaled back their foreign bureaus. But this isn’t a decision made in a vacuum; it’s a business decision based on how necessary budget cuts can be made that will least affect readership/viewership. Foreign coverage is typically the first to go because there’s less of a demand for foreign news—an unfortunate fact that’s consistently driven home by click-through rates and TV news ratings. In other words, if there was a strong demand for coverage of world affairs, you’d see more of that and less about car crashes, dramatic crimes and celebrity scandal.

    Of course, this all begs the question of why we’re generally less interested in what happens beyond our borders, aside from events that directly impact us.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1315 hrs


  10. ...

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1617 hrs


  11. Nero fiddles…....

    I don’t believe the Taliban can take Pakistan by themselves.  The problem comes if the military changes sides.  Or if there is a popular uprising.  Both are certainly within the realm.

    Posted by Steve on May 14, 2009 at 0341 hrs


  12. They are pretty well armed. But do lack heavy equipment. But I don’t think that matters. They don’t fight wars like we do. If they keep the pressure on and starting infiltrating the government - they will be able to pull off a coup. Then it’s all over.

    The very next thing they do is to nuke India, and probably Israel. China moves in, and we’ll move in to protect Israel. Game over for everyone. Start watching the History Channel series on Life without People.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1022 hrs


  13. Pakistan seems to have been on the verge of collapsing for an awful long time without ever actually having collapsed.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1536 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.