OT Truck Accident Kills 72 in India's North

Seventy-two dead and barely made the news.
Because it had nothing to do with Iraq it is not of interest to the media.
<http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ØRGQ15G2&show_article=1>

"dbu`" ...
  Quoted Text Here  
Might be more because it's outside of the U.S. You know our media doesn't give a shit about anyone else.
Irks the hell out of me when I see headlines like, "300 people die in plane crash, 1 American"
Like that one American is more important than the other 299 victims.
Natalie

  Quoted Text Here  
That's exactly my wife's reaction. I guess I am so used to hearing them report it like that, that it doesn't faze me anymore.

dbu` wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What are you watching and reading? Iraq usually get pushed *way* back off the front page and all the talking heads are into gay sexual encounters and starlets. Not counting the *PRE* invasion stuff, of course.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Iraq is front page. What are YOU reading?

dbu` wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
LIEberal LA Times. Generally, over the last few years Iraq is pushed back. For TV, Faux Noise is the worst but all chase shallow stories of the Paris Hilton variety.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Newspapers don't want to p-off subscribers. Example, my local paper which I dropped a few weeks ago except for the Sunday, called me today and said because I'm such a good customer (Ha ha) they are going to deliver to me 6 days a week for 13 weeks free. My Sunday subscription which is $26 for 52 weeks will continue. I think they lost quite a few subscribers in recent weeks due to a couple of stories they ran and the negative Bush stuff they push.
They are now trying to boost their numbers so they can get the advertising dollars. I have little mercy for their sorry asses.

dbu` wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
LOL, exactly. The so called liberal Times (Chicago based Tribune Co) has changed dramatically in the last few years, more and more fluff, adding right wing columnists, and laying off long time employees. Last I heard it changed hands (sold to Billionaire real estate mogul Sam Zell in a two-stage deal valued at $8.2 billion, or $34 a share. The Internet has really screwed with the bottom line of newspapers.
Couple of years back in an act of desperation (after I canceled) they offered me a full year (seven days) for around a hundred bucks so I took it. They offered again and again I took it. Habit. Been starting my day with a newspaper for many years and the local rag really sucks. If I don't sub I wind up scrounging for quarters (paying more) and driving around so its a winner two ways.

  Quoted Text Here  
The LA Times has been getting skimpier and skimpier over the past year or so. First was the decision to print in the financial section only the higher volume stocks, and the biggest mutual funds, not a complete financial picture daily. Then a couple of months ago, they discontinued the weekly (Sunday) TV section (but if you're so inclined, you can read it or print it out on line, such a deal) and now the Sunday Times magazine, which used to be a weekly issue, is now published only once a month. It's really slipping, and the regional editions are a joke....in the Inland Empire edition that I read, there may be one (at most two) stories of news in Riverside or San Bernardino, no more.

mack wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yep, and the new Op/Ed section on Sunday *really* sucks. Letters and cartoons in miniature and half way it turns into the Book Section but you have to turn it over (unless you can read upside down) if you want to read it. <sigh>

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:23:12 -0500, dbu` wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You posted this Thursday, I heard it at 3AM (7AM GMT) on the BBC.
But not before that...