American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them.
But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage.
I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me.
Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible 'bias' - that is understandable, at least politically.
> American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them.
American news outlets generally don't report on anything that they aren't getting press releases and phone calls about from companies and organizations that they're friendly with. They only do it if so many other outlets are reporting the story that they'd look bad, and then they just copy the story directly from those other outlets.
They don't report negatively on sponsors, other parts of their very large and diverse companies, or any other companies that their owners or important employees are associated with, unless forced. If forced, they copy what has been reported and add nothing but mild apologia and FUD.
American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless...
...they think there's a chance to start a war. Compare the coverage of protests in India to those in Hong Kong. In India they want the government to coddle big business and rich people less: zero coverage. In Hong Kong they wanted to embarrass Chinese communists: wall-to-wall coverage. Often we can see this phenomenon in a single nation. When a few relatively wealthy capitalists protested the duly elected government of Venezuela a couple of years ago, we heard all about it. Two days ago Maduro's government won reelection in a landslide, and we haven't heard a peep. The fact that large majorities of Venezuelans support their current government makes it more difficult for us to start the war that John Bolton wants, so that won't be mentioned on CNN.
The election was widely discredited as fraudulent, remember Putin as 85% approval ratings and if China held an election literally tommorow, Xi would win, after all, nobody is allowed to say anything about him.
But it's moot: the US President is Tweeting something and there's a court saying something about the elections which is 100x more important than anything about Venezuela, at least in America.
It'd have to be the slowest news day in the US for news about any kind of strikes to make the US news. It's not on the Guardian, BBC, CBC either.
The observation is not that certain nations are not covered; that would be pointless. The observation is that those nations that are covered, are only covered when coverage increases the chance of massive USA "Defense" Department spending.
But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage.
I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me.
Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible 'bias' - that is understandable, at least politically.
But these FTC moves, I don't get.