As a Sri Lankan, I felt compelled to click on Powerline's coverage of Miss Sri Lanka. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else, when I found:

"There has been a great deal of interest in Miss Sri Lanka, Jacqueline Fernandez--is that a Sri Lankan name?--who looks ravishing and sounds as though she grew up in Wisconsin."

Now I for one am actually glad this guy didn't cover the bombings. Idiot.

Ennis, I couldn't agree with you more. It's myopia that prevents people from seeing that the bombing in Mumbai is an international issue. It repeats a pattern of political violence that has been seen elsewhere in the world recently, and that is interconnected in a global sense (regardless of whether Al-Qaeda is involved or not). The motives, strategies, planning, execution of any such incident are baffling at first. This doesn't mean there isn't room for rich analysis. Here are some questions of universal relevance that come immediately to mind: how to deal with terrorism? Why is it being escalated at this point? Is there an international conduit for arms and money? What will two nuclear powers do at this point? What has America's role been in defusing or increasing tensions in South Asia? (Hello). How are people and a city dealing with it at this point?

1) This is probably regional terrorism. It is the same reason that bombings by ETA, the IRA, and Indonesian terror groups get little or no coverage in the U.S. press.

2) Terrorism committed by dark skinned terrorists against light skinned victims "has longer legs" in western media. In this case the terrorists and their victims look the same. Brown on brown violence isn't as noteworthy.

3) The most popular blogs in the U.S. are political blogs. This story doesn't (as of now) appear to have a connection to Al-Qaeda and is therefore not useful to the left or right in any type of political spin games. With the London and Madrid bombings there was plenty of material one could use to score political points.

4)India has a very large population. Countries with a large population are viewed by others as being able to "handle" more casualties than smaller countries. It doesn't make any sense of course but that is how it is. When it is a large "dark-skinned country" then...

Did the Beslan incident get a wide coverage in the MSM ? Most just had a cursory coverage of that too.

I remember seeing images from Beslan on TV frequently. Basayev's death, on the other hand, got relatively little coverage in the US despite the horrific nature of his crimes. When a major war criminal like that, somebody who went after schools and hospitals, dies, I think it's front page news.

What motivated AQ to go after India? It’s hardly the first country one associates with the West, and many Muslims live within the majority-Hindu nation… But mostly AQ and other Islamist terrorists have targeted tourists, and India is in the middle of its tourist season. The Srinagar attack left six tourists dead. AQ wants to destroy India’s economy, fragile enough as it is, by keeping tourists away from the country.

Tourists don't ride those trains in Mumbai, do they?

FWIW, there were at least THREE diaries on DailyKos on the subject. I, myself, learned a great deal from the discussion. dKos isn't Kos. It's the dKos community.

I think two or more reasons. First most people have nothing to add. It's not like I would go to a blog for an update when I can get much better information on CNN. On this score I'm surprised Desi blogs didn't do a better job of being a conduit for the news on the ground over there.

Second, on the geopolitical "analysis" front most people don't really have a good sense of what is going on so cannot any off the cuff analysis that looks or smells interesting.

India also doesn't fit into the narrative of either side very easily. It fits into the GWOT in some ways because it has to deal with a terrorism problem but it doesn't seem terribly supportive of GW's efforts in Iraq, etc. It's not like you can "blame" the attacks on support for admin (Madrid/London) or anything specific.

Finally, the folks are brown.

You're right that bloggers may have had little to add. Still, I think that has to be combined with a sense that the news is distant and not directly connected to explain how little attention is being paid. As for the strategic angles, you might be right. They're clear to me which is why I'm trying to suggest them, but they may not be clear to others.

BTW, here is an example of some very good coverage in a blog post.

Don't look for coverage in the western press/blogs of terrorist attacks in India. After all, we are not white-skinned or all Christians.

India and Israel have been fighting Islamic terror long, long before 9/11...

On a sort of related note - for those SM readers outside India, what has been the response from your colleagues?
At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?

At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?

great question. i'd love to hear too.

Well, on that same technorati list, the Mumbai blasts were 4, 6, 17, and 21. The San Francisco Chronicle had it as their headline today, though the local angle (interviews with Bay Area residents) were certainly prominent. On the more neocon/militaristic side of the political spectrum little green footballs and national review each had a few posts of it.

That said, MSM and blog coverage is far less than that of the Madrid and London bombings, so far, and google trends doesn't have any data from the last month.

Arun, we're in agreement. Look at the paragraph before the list. This is what I say:

To be more precise, Technorati’s rankings of popular news stories shows us that average bloggers are paying some attention to the bombings; the fourth, sixth and twentieth most reblogged news stories are the BBC, CNN, and Fox News versions of this story. It’s currently less important than the death of Pink Floyd guitarist Syd Barrett, or coverage of Zidane’s press coverage, but more important than Bob Novak and the big dig.

I saw that World Cup finals viewership in the US was double this year from four years ago. Why? I'd guess it was because all four teams were European and the games were held in Europe.

Ethnocentricism rules, sadly.

It is sad to see, but you are right that it has not gotten more comment from the blogs. I add a couple of observations based on what is showing up in memeorandum. The Israeli-Lebanese fighting escalating into what could be another full-fledged shooting war between Israel and its neighbors, Lebanon and Syria, is pretty big news for the US and the world. The rest of the stories have parochial interest, but have been hotly followed, like Novak and the Plame case, and the debate over Presidential powers. Many more Americans who have traveled abroad (like the MSM) have been to London and Madrid so these places seem more familar to them than Mumbai (and those that know India only vaguely would better recognize the city of Bombay). I agree that one big reason is that there is no hook on who to blame - it makes it hard to fit spin or a narrative around it for a comment. Although I consider myself fairly well aware of world events, I did not know that the Indian-Pakistan relationship had moved towards heightened tension recently; I thought the friendlier relations had been continuing. If more evidence is gathered that implicates Pakistani-related terrorists, you'll see more commentary with that angle. Also if the rhetoric between the governments heats up, the media and the blogs will remember that both are nuclear powers.

You may also want to wait and see what happens after tonight's news cycle. With the time differences this news from far away takes longer to seep into the collective.

All that said, India has my seepest sympathies for this tradegy. It hurts as a humna and as a New Yorker, even more.

Outstanding post. There was more discussion on a fantasy football (American) discussion board I'm on than most of the blogs I read.

Which only goes to show that Daily Kos, Huff-po, TPM, Insta and all of these blogs are turning into the MSM.

This is a fine example of something I have been screaming myself hoarse about here in New Orleans: New technology does not make independent or relevant journalism. The content does.

I came to your blog after linking from Josh Marshall's site. I think you make some really good points here, but as a white American woman, I just wanted to throw in my two cents here.

I listened to coverage on the BBC this morning and had a few thoughts. First off, I was really impressed with the fortitude and courage that many of those interviewed in Mumbai expressed after the bombings. When one gentloeman was asked, Would he stay home and avoid riding the subways? His reply was in effect, Hell no! He wouldn't give in to fear. Much like the reaction of Londoners last year after the subway bombings.

As a wimpy woman who lives in Pennsylvana, between NYC and Washington DC, I will confess I was scared s**tless after 9/11. Now, five years later, I'm more concerned about our loss of civil liberties than I am of another terrorist attack.

My point is that I think folks in England and India are just, unfortunately, seasoned veterans when it comes to terrorist attacks. Now we Americans need to sober up and face reality too.

As far as the lack of comment by the bloggers, I do think that here in the US, a lot of folks are just "battle weary" from all the horrific news those who bother to read the papers are made aware of daily. Whether it's Iraq, Israel-Palistine, India, Somalia, Sudan, or Indonesia, there's so much bad news these days, a lot of folks would just rather stick to discussions about Politics as Usual. Thanks for raising the issue.

BTW, my younger son was born in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, so we flew into Beslan in 2002 to adopt him. We followed the news in Sept. 2004 very closely because of our obvious connection. I can assure you the average American has no idea where Beslan is or how many children died there. Chechnya might as well be South America, for all the awareness the average American has with regard to world geography. The only reason the school massacre got any coverage at all here in the U.S. is because so many of the victims were children. No nuance in any of the coverage either. "Islamic militants" were the cause. No effort to explain the history there, that these Chechen militants were originally after independence before being brutalized by Moscow and then joining forces with Islamists. Not excusing anything here, but pointing out that the whole story was poorly communicated in much of the MSM.

Peace

But isn't SM to an extent guilty of this parochial attitude ? Do we discuss massacres in Africa where hundreds of thousands have been killed ? Places like Rwanda or Darfur don't cross most of our minds any more than it appears in the MSM in the West or the popular blogs. News stories deemed "irrelevant" to the Desi context are deleted from the news tab. But we have 500+ posts on the Kaavya story in a single thread. Is that any different from my local newscast that spends 10 minutes inanely talking about a cat being rescued from a tree.

The political blogs in the U.S. tend to focus on domestic politics, Al Qaeda and Iraq. If any kind of a link between Al Qaeda and the bombings is shown, coverage in the blogs would pick up. For international news, I use other sources. My political efforts at this time are focused on getting the Bush enablers out of office. The implications for Americans that you list are accurate and frightening. I do care about international affairs but my country is in such disarray that foreign affairs are pushed to the back burner.

You might want to read some blog entries on my blog, although I plan on writing more about it:

http://geekinside1337.blogspot.com

Excellent and thoughtful post.

However, I have to disagree. MSM or not, until India makes this a bigger deal herself, NOBODY needs to think about the implications because there don't seem to be any! The attacks seem to be increasing in frequency and brazenness and each time there is a sombre line in some analysis about India's patience being tested and then poof. Nothing. And so it is until the next attack. Bangladesh-based terrorists were suspected of being involved last time (Varanasi bombs earlier this year). Why exactly didn't India go after them? I doubt America would've restrained India - Bangladesh holds no strategic importance for anyone as far as I'm aware. They don't have nukes. They don't have a real army. But leave alone Islamic extremists, we can't even get them to extradite that ULFA leader to India! It's pathetic.

India has repeatedly sent a clear message that people can attack its citizens with little or no consequence. There simply isn't much to analyze here.

As evident form Ennis'/Manish's list, the political dichotomy here is obvious. To add to it, The Nation barely touched it, in great contrast to National Review. Pretty much nothing on Common Dreams.org but Drudge and Realclearpolitcs were right on it, though their coverage was not as all-encompassing as it was for madrid and london as Abhi pointed out in another thread.

Bush has gained considerably from the American left's inability to even engage in a discussion of the most important issue of our time. It seems as if they view it as an “inconvenient truth,” to steal from Al gore. I remember a similar thing happening when al-Zarqawi was killed. The dems are clearly split and are hoping bush's screw-up in Iraq will excuse them from presenting a cohesive overarching plan of their own. This from the party that was mostly responsible for giving us the great post wwII doctrines: the Marshall plan, Containment, and MAD.

They've left overarching philosophical political thinking to the Neo-Cons.

The local television stations in Hawai'i went a little beyond the canned footage from their networks; they dug up some Asian Studies profs at the University of Hawai'i to discuss the wider implications.

Well, how many of us give that kinda attention to violence in Africa, for instance?

For a lot of us a lot of times (myself included), it's just like 'Oh well, those Africans are killing each other. Again. Whatever'. I can completely see why someone in the US or Europe would have a similar attitude towards violence in India.

Huh. I was gonna point this out, and did some hunting to see if it was as true as it seemed. I'm not a regular dKos reader, and I almost never touch Atrios, so it was somewhat surprising to me to see how insular the stories there were; Kos is nearly entirely sewn up in American politics. The rest of the world might not even exist.

As to the bearing this has on the United States, what the hell? I realize I'm an internationalist by birth, born with my two feet planted on different continents, but come ON! Shouldn't, at the very least, American liberals be sick of American isolationism and pine for familiarity with the rest of the world? This is about as annoying an attitude as coverage of the tsunami that focused on how many white tourists had been killed.

I'm naot saying I agree with this view, but some family members are becoing very anto muslim, while others belive the USA did it, to prevent India becoming a Superpower. Who knows. Either way it was evil.

Oh, come on, Brown (#15). Had Mexico gone further, US TV ratings would have been a lot higher. The World Cup ratings were higher this time because the time slots for live games in Korea and Japan last time around were horrible, like 2 AM, and repeats are a lot less interesting when you know who won.

While there's an element of truth in claims that Americans care less about events that don't involve them, or people they identify with, there are a lot more Americans who identify with Mexico than with many European countries.

Thay are simply not interested in us, however as long as the U.S govt. isn't ignorant to whats happening in India, who cares what the American media or people think. This doesnt directly effect them in any way. The biggest story on CNN.COM is about the accident in Boston yesterday. American media keeps the public here quite ignorant about whats going on in the world. No big surprises.

On a sort of related note - for those SM readers outside India, what has been the response from your colleagues?
At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?

in a cubicle guy at a software outfit. bossed (owner) asked me about it. i didn't know much aside from what i heard on the BBC.

But isn't SM to an extent guilty of this parochial attitude ? Do we discuss massacres in Africa where hundreds of thousands have been killed ? Places like Rwanda or Darfur don't cross most of our minds any more than it appears in the MSM in the West or the popular blogs. News stories deemed "irrelevant" to the Desi context are deleted from the news tab. But we have 500+ posts on the Kaavya story in a single thread. Is that any different from my local newscast that spends 10 minutes inanely talking about a cat being rescued from a tree.

Vikram -

I'm not accusing the MSM or the blogosphere or being parochial, I know it is and accept it. I'm accusing it of being myopic. I think that these events have a clear strategic importance for US interests in the region and am arguing that the bloggers ought to have paid attention to that aspect of the story.

Manju,
My point on the other thread was that this was NOT a left/right thing. Both sides are ignoring it pretty equally because it doesn't allow either side to score any points. I would add that the left (and myself) spends a lot of its time pointing out (and rightly so) that there ARE other issues to discuss besides terrorism. That doesn't mean that they think terrorism is unimportant. The two great idealogical battles of our time are pro-environment vs. do nothing and anti-terror vs. pro-civil liberties. The first one is clear as far as I'm concerned but the second one has a lot of gray area and should be debated and contested by healthy discussion.

The news was all over the MSM (in US) yesterday. All the channels were showing live footage.. all through the morning.
It was the main news in all the nightly new programs.

"The most popular blogs in the U.S. are political blogs. "

Not even close. The most popular blogs in the US are tech blogs like Slashdot and Engadget. Political blogs come in second, but there's a wide margin there.

"On a sort of related note - for those SM readers outside India, what has been the response from your colleagues?
At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?"

one of my siblings is in india. several of their non-indian co-workers in the u.s. e-mailed/rang them to make sure they were ok, even though they weren't in mumbai. last year after the earthquake in india and pakistan, couple of their ex-professors e-mailed them to express condolences. bbc has many expressions of sympathy from non-indians. it may not be the overwhelmingly important story on everyone's minds, but there are still many people who cared enough to notice.

I read the stories on the bombing in Mumbai in the NYTimes and the Washington Post with great sorrow; I gave them more study than I gave the London or Madrid bombings because I know London and I don't know Mumbai.

It's not because I'm a jerk. The summer before 9/11 I read a book about the Taliban and I skipped the chapter on Al Qaida because I didn't realize why it was important to an American. I was reading the book because I wanted to understand how American policy had disrupted Afghanistan. We learn as we go. Sometimes ahead, sometimes just in time, sometimes late. Two summers ago I read a number of books on the history of the Middle East - the first I had to read twice, before I could keep the names of people and places straight.

I think Kevin Drum's final statement was downright stupid. There are disengaged and self-absorbed citizens in every country on Earth. That's beside the point. The point is bloggers don't write about what interests other people; they write about what interests themelves and by writing and publishing they hope to interest, educate and influence other people. But you wouldn't want to read a blogger who didn't know what he or she was talking about.

So bottom line, I don't think I couldn't connect the dots because I'm white; I think it's because I didn't know enough. But I'd read your blog to learn more. And if you want to learn more about how Bush lies, distorts, twists and spins, you can read mine.

Honestly, I realized a few days ago while I was listening to the news, and the latest atrocities in Baghdad, I have become numb. Waves of dead bodies on a daily basis, and the permanently/fatally mutilated aren't even mentioned. It's exhausting.

$$$ that the media mentions SM in the meta-analysis of the reaction to the action.

I'm not accusing the MSM or the blogosphere or being parochial, I know it is and accept it. I'm accusing it of being myopic. I think that these events have a clear strategic importance for US interests in the region and am arguing that the bloggers ought to have paid attention to that aspect of the story.

I agree with you, but I think that apart from the blogs/bloggers who were already covering the India/Pakistan/Kashmir/global militant Islamic terrorism nexus prior to the Mumbai bombings (ironically this has been discussed on the more politically conservative and "un-PC" blogs and hence persona non grata here by SM standards), to most bloggers, this is just a local incident like the IRA bombings in England back in the 70s and 80s. One would like to hope that bloggers can see the forest for the trees. The Northern Virginia Jihad group was convicted on charges of supporting terrorism in Kashmir, but oddly enough, hardly anyone sees a connection to terrorism in the US and India in the blogosphere in the West.

er...could someone please tell me what MSM is?
Thanks!!!

MSM = Main Stream Media, the traditional print and electronic media as distinguished from the blogosphere.

But isn't SM to an extent guilty of this parochial attitude ? Do we discuss massacres in Africa where hundreds of thousands have been killed ?

Uh, why would they be guilty of it? They've stated their focus hundreds of times, it's the diaspora and the South Asian nations from whence it came. If there isn't an explicit desi angle, covering massacres in Africa (or anything else) would be OT.

If there isn't an explicit desi angle, covering massacres in Africa (or anything else) would be OT.

Hey, that was actually going to be my next post! :)

Re brown_fob #34
It is true there was wide mention of the bombings, but for a story of this nature there was truly a lack of depth - examples were folks saying "blasts in India " rather than Mumbai. Some even said Mumbai was the "capital of India." Other mentioned the "subway" system. There is a certain "its big but let us get over with it" feel to the presentation. Come on - CNN can't get interviews with average Bombayites?

I just get tired of the Bombay-Gin-Cincinnati-Bengals syndrome.

I think in India think are a little ill-defined for TV - literally. I mean where does the landscaping begin so we can come in for our slow sepia toned intro?

Have you noticed how Zidane news is on top AFTER the world cup?

BBC has some great word from the street.

Uh, why would they be guilty of it? They've stated their focus hundreds of times, it's the diaspora and the South Asian nations from whence it came. If there isn't an explicit desi angle, covering massacres in Africa (or anything else) would be OT.

Uh, then why find fault with the other blogs who probably think Paris Hilton is a more important subject than the Mumbai massacre ? Since they haven't stated that India has any angle of interest to them, why accuse them of being myopic ? They have as much right to deem what might be important to SM as being OT on their blogs.

Although it's not a blog per se, Salon.com has three stories posted about the Mumbai bombings today, making it their main feature. I was so glad to read them, too, as someone who has lived in India and traveled by commuter train many times. Given that India is a democracy and a nuclear power with a history of sectarian tensions of various kinds, you'd think the West would pay more attention. But, no, that would ruin the fantasy of India as the "exotic East." Sigh.

Abhi:

Both sides are ignoring it pretty equally...

I don't think the facts bear this out. Just take a look at the varous Left/right sites. The Nation vs. National review, Huffingtonpost vs. drudge, common dreams.org vs realclearpolitics, talkinpointmemo vs. instapundit, kos vs. LGF.

...because it doesn't allow either side to score any points

It obviously plays into themes that would help the right. It shows terrorists always have gripes and that those who stress changing US foreign policy in order to placate them are being shortsighted. "They hate us b/c of our policies" line is just seeing the trees but missing the forest, and an event like this reminds us of the Forrest: they hate all people that are different from them. Also, it reminds people that here has been no major terrorist act on US soil since 9/11.

(terror)should be debated and contested by healthy discussion.

On this I agree. And that is kinda my whole point.

Look, we can complain about how bloggers and MSM hasn't covered these events to the extend we'd like. WE may understand why it's in the US's benefit to see what is happeneing. But that has a lot to do with our backgrounds as well. We may understand the subtle undercurrents, but do most MSM and bloggers? They just don't have the background for it. This is natural.

I wonder how well the recent events in Somalia have been covered in the Indian market with a strong surge of Islamists taking control. BBC has decent coverage as usual, but events in Somalia should be of interest to the US market as well as the Indian market. What kind of coverage has it received?

Not much, other than the two guys who were killed for watching soccer on television. And that had more to do with the world cup than someone being killed for entertaining themselves.

Uh, then why find fault with the other blogs who probably think Paris Hilton is a more important subject than the Mumbai massacre ? Since they haven't stated that India has any angle of interest to them, why accuse them of being myopic ? They have as much right to deem what might be important to SM as being OT on their blogs.

Vikram - I was looking at political blogs, most of which usually write extensively on US foreign policy. It's weird that they're ignoring this recent, highly salient, event.

I don't think the facts bear this out. Just take a look at the varous Left/right sites. The Nation vs. National review, Huffingtonpost vs. drudge, common dreams.org vs realclearpolitics, talkinpointmemo vs. instapundit, kos vs. LGF.

I have. Some of those sites I consider "frothing at the mouth right wing" and I don't think they are the basis for fair comparison. Drudge and Huffpost are however and they gave very similar coverage. Drudge no longer even has a link to any Mumbai stories. I refresh Drude almost as often as I refresh SM so believe me when I say that he is ignoring this. Instapundit has a long-standing habit of quoting Amit Varma and the Indian blogosphere. With him its not because he is on the right politically.

It shows terrorists always have gripes and that those who stress changing US foreign policy in order to placate them are being shortsighted.

Ha. That is YOUR interpretation and one that I might call very shortsighted. :)

they hate all people that are different from them.

Again. Shockingly oversimplified in my opinion.

On this I agree. And that is kinda my whole point.

I think you know which side of the debate I'm on and I love a healthy debate.

We may understand the subtle undercurrents, but do most MSM and bloggers? They just don't have the background for it. This is natural.

I think you're selling the blogosphere short. They've heard of Musharraf. They know that he's a major US ally. News stories indicate that Pakistan may have been supporting whoever was involved in the bombings. That means that our ally is supporting terrorism. Furthermore, if India acts the way that the US does, then there might be a retaliation in the offing. Bloggers know that India and Pakistan have nukes and don't get along. They can see that this might be very bad.

The potential of a nuclear confrontation is not very subtle. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I am saying that it's something to be concerned about. It's the sort of foreign policy story that US political bloggers should be interested in.

Joe/15 - I agree that the time differences from Seoul was a factor, good point. And I agree there would have been a lot of interest had Mexico advanced. But I don't think either point negates mine. Mexico is a bordering country, not to mention in the news an awful lot of late. And we obvioulsy have a lot of Mexcian-Americans citizens, so ethnocentricism is still in play. Mexico is not India.

And it's Jones, not Brown, but I know the drill: You see one ultra-common name, you've seen 'em all. ;-)

Vikram - I was looking at political blogs, most of which usually write extensively on US foreign policy. It's weird that they're ignoring this recent, highly salient, event.

Ennis:
The Israel/Hezbollah situation is what is uppermost on most (Western) political blogs . And I daresay that since US foreign policy is so deeply entwined with what happens in that part of the world, that everything else pales in comparison. On the other hand, if India mobilizes troops on the Indo-Pak border as it did after the 2001 Parliament attack, the political bloggers will refocus on India, because Pakistan is of strategic importance to the US and such a situation would then affect the US foreign policy.

The New York Times and the BBC had a LOT of coverage on their web sites. I can't speak for TV since I don't have a TV now. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post had Op-Eds today, but no editorial comment.

As far as Beslan goes, it got a lot of coverage in the NYTimes, the BBC and a little less elsewhere.

The Bloggers who commented (like some of the messages on the BBC site) try to fit into their neat little ideological compartments -- LGF links to it to reinforce its thrust that all Muslims are terrorists, Dkos diarists to make some silly comment about whether its Mumbai or Bombay. Most know little about India, I suspect.

But in general, TV and local media coverage for events goes like this

Terrorism in US: Front PAge news for months
Terrorism in West Europe: Major news, especially if its London.
Terrorism in Israel: Each particular incident gets a lot of attention (but there are a lot)
Terrorism in India: Very little attention unless India threatens to use nukes
Africa: Where is that ? Is that where Angelina Jolie went to have her baby ?
Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

Drudge no longer even has a link to any Mumbai stories. I refresh Drude almost as often as I refresh SM so believe me when I say that he is ignoring this.

Drudge still has it up. I hotlink, you decide. (righ side, about 7 down from picture)

I didn't mean to debate the reasons why an event like this helps the American right or whether these conclusions are legit, just that they exist and the right will obviously make them, while the left has no obvious response to the event, other than sadness and condolences which sadly, many of them did not even offer.

Ennis:

I'm not trying to sell them short in the sense that they don't have the information infront of them. But having a bunch of random facts floating around in one's head vs. connecting the dots are completely different things.

Bloggers also like to post stories that, ultimately, are well read/circulated. The self crowned big boys cherish their popularity. Overall, does the American public understand the nuances here? Just because a blogger is popular doesn't mean he/she is competant or qualified (as the Abhi's like to CQ showed). Slapping the blogger or journalist title on doesn't make one more aware/educated. It just gives you a soapbox to launch your content from. It could be good, bad, popular but without value, or unpopular, yet very insightful.

Sites like this one and a few others have good content. But the MSM and widely read blogs that believe THEY are the reasons why people go there, not the content. In some ways, it shows how far we all have to go in getting the word out.

Drudge still has it up. I hotlink, you decide. (righ side, about 7 down from picture)

Yes you are right, it is sort of buried there on the right. With the London and Madrid attacks he had it as the main headline every day with new pics. Right now two missing Israeli soldiers are more important.

If CBS figures that an airhead like Katie Couric has the (mental) qualifications to be its primetime news anchor then it should be no surprise as to why TV news is not the place if anyone wants to follow world affairs. It is all about ratings and fluff topics where what the anchor wears is of more importance than the content of the news.

Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

true that. Lacey Petersen and that chick who went missing in Aruba were top stories for months... nothing new had developed, but the MSM kept rehashing it daily.

Ummm, #55 isn't me -- I have a TV and it's on all the time. That said:

Africa: Where is that ? Is that where Angelina Jolie went to have her baby ? Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

Very hard to argue with this analysis -- and if it's a young white woman missing in Aruba, there will be hourly updates on every network. :)

This whole thing makes me wonder why Pakistan is treated so gingerly. In the earlier posts, does AQ refer to AQ Khan? How can this country, which we are not sure was involved in this attack, get away with what we do know about them? AQ Khan still operating his black market nukes, Bin Laden still living there, what more is needed?

I have a TV and it's on all the time.

HELL YES!!

Someone brought up this issue in one of the larger Bombay threads and commented on Americans' general disinterest in foreigners. Unfortunately the issue goes much deeper than this. Upper middle class Americans just aren't that concerned about those outside their circle, whether they live in the United States or abroad. All of the media outlets mentioned here are designed to speak to and for them... so their content is adjusted accordingly.

I'm sure most of you can recall the oddly muted news coverage of and public reaction to Hurricane Katrina last year. Outside of a few blogs and the 24/7 news channels, it was pretty much business as usual across the country. The regular networks devoted less special coverage than they did to the death of JFK Jr. or the(long expected) death of Ronald Reagan. No sporting events were cancelled. Flags remained at full staff... at least until Justice Rehnquist died. There was only a half-hearted attempt at a national day of prayer... which was postponed so as not to conflict with the 4th anniversary observation of 9/11.

The reactions I observed while at work and other public places were nothing like the numbness after 9/11. I was reminded instead of accounts by Americans who were abroad on that day. The people around me were concerned... but not that concerned. Something huge and horrible had happened... but it had happened somewhere very far away. In the immortal words of the Narendra Modi troll, "those were not their people." President Bush and his associates were rebuked after the fact for their inaction... but nobody else at the time seemed all that interested either. It took many days and weeks for Katrina to mature as news story... and this happened after players on both the Left and the Right realized the political capital that was there for the taking.

Worse yet was the small... but far from inconsequential... minority that saw this event as a triumph instead of a disaster. They saw the outcome as a just verdict and expressed satisfaction at the punishment delivered to the victims. Their statements, with just a few key words changed, could have been used as communiques by Hamas or Al Qaeda...

There are certainly plenty of bigots in play... but the central issue is class, not race. Right now the people that "matter" in this country have little use for those that are not like them... be they brown folks in Bombay or poor blacks and rednecks in Louisiana and Mississippi. This country has become increasingly divided in recent years.. the sense of shared identity and common cause so painstakingly nurtured through the New Deal, World War II and the Civil Rights era has begun to wither. The recent debate immigrants legal and illegal is just a sideshow. The more troubling issue is the number of Americans who view other Americans essentially as foreigners inside their borders. The level of social and political discourse in this country has declined accordingly...

We're hardly top-tier, but for what it's worth, our thoughts are with the victims.

Upper middle class Americans just aren't that concerned about those outside their circle, whether they live in the United States or abroad.

as opposed to lower or lower-middle class or middle class? cosmpolitanism is positively correlated with SES. don't muddy your point with class-talk when it works against it.

You're wondering why American political blogs are not posting about a tragedy that doesn't involve American politics. We are not involved in the Pakisatan-India situation at all, so commenting on the horrifying tragedy would simply be saying, "This is so sad." That should be understood.

Cosmpolitanism is positively correlated with SES.

Historically, yes. The problem is that this group appears to be becoming less engaged with and interested in outsiders over time. Much of their past activism may have been patronizing or misguided... but I don't think indifference is a better solution...

I have a TV and it's on all the time.

HELL YES!!

Hey, how else would I keep up with the Couch Barnacles of the world? Just think of all the late night 1980s movie reruns I'd miss -- and if that happened, I might soon be put on probation on this site, if not outright banned, and sent straight to remedial pop culture literacy classes. ;)

NAR:

You're wondering why American political blogs are not posting about a tragedy that doesn't involve American politics. We are not involved in the Pakisatan-India situation at all, so commenting on the horrifying tragedy would simply be saying, "This is so sad." That should be understood.

America is involved in the Pak-India situation as the nuke deal and Bush's recent trip to the subcont showed. The bombings also cannot be seen merely thru the lens of this situation, as there may even be an Al Qaeda link, and there is certainly a radical Islam link. This is not relevent to american politics?

"This is so sad," is a good starter, but we are not talking about a natural disaster.

Austin Bay had a link shortly after the attacks here.

If not now, when would be a better time for the likes of Fareed Zakaria and Somini Sengupta to represent and educate? NPR had a an interview with an ex head of Indian intelligence , a Mr. Bhagat. We need more of such.

NAR,
In that case the London bombings were relevant how? After all the bombers were all British, so wasn't it a local homegrown terrorist problem? Your post is breathtakingly parochial. The same organizations that do this in India are involved in attacks
against US soldiers in Afghanistan, and are a part of the networks that form "Al Qaeda".

Re: Your statement saying: "On the other hand, if the bombings were actually committed by a new group connected to Al-Qaeda, this marks the opening of a significant new front in the “Global War on Terror”. Al-Qaeda activities are of clear importance to America."

How many times do we have to be reminded? There is no (quote) "war on terror" (unquote). It is a stupid statement, and I’ll explain why in a moment. I don’t mean that as a pejorative. It is too easy to slip into. And to repeat it, or give it any credence, is to help spread a lie, a deliberate attempt at propaganda, or a statement by a person who does not know what he or she is talking about. I find that the newspapers and television, as well as “blogs” on the internet, all use the phrase “war on terror” and it does everyone a disservice. Google alone states that there are 137,000,000 references to this phase.

When our President, George Bush, says those words, he is talking non-sense. So is anyone else using these words.

The words are inflammatory, and their ultimate effect often deliberately to cause people to suspend any rational judgment about the things the speaker wants to do because of this so-called “War on Terror.” When rational judgment is suspended, people will do anything no matter how ineffective it is because of the emotional mind-clouding power, and the fear it gives rise to, when such meaningless words are used.

It is also extremely sloppy journalism to repeat this phase, except as a direct quote, because it is meaningless. It is as meaningless as “war on laziness” or the “war on weather.” Journalists seem never to have heard of semantics, which looks at the meaning of words and how their use affects us.

Right now, we as a country are involved in a number of situations, some dangerous, some not, one or two very separate wars, some diplomatic efforts, and a very diverse set of circumstances that may possibly threaten our way of life, and we, as a country, appear to be afraid of a number of diversified groups of people who reside in various countries. We are also, as a country, possibly threatened in a number of ways by a number of countries, as opposed to small scattered groups of people. All of these have been lumped together into a catch phrase that is entirely meaningless, namely a "war on terror."

If we can define what these groups and countries are and distinguish how they differ from one another, it can help us to understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and what the characteristics of all this mixed up “war on terror” might really mean. This, of course, immediately implies that there is no one single opponent against whom we can wage war, but instead presents a variety of different situations, some more dangerous than others, each of them requiring that we handle them, as best we can, in different ways if we want to reduce any threat they pose.

• The first group of people that we claim to be fighting with is a vaguely defined group, once led by a man named Bin Laden, that calls itself Al Qaeda. It appears to be based in Afghanistan, but may have spread to various other countries. It is a loosely-knit, guerrilla group that dislikes “the West”, vaguely defined as European and American countries. We don’t know nearly enough about it to be “at war” with this group because it is so diffuse, and it is all too easy to confuse it with other groups at times. It is not certain that its leaders are alive or have control over this group because it is so diffuse. Originally, it was most probably responsible for the event known as “9/11”. We, as a country under President Bush, claim to be fighting this group but appear to have lost interest in pursuing this group forcefully.

I say “claim to be fighting” because, for all of our efforts, we have never caught Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda appears to be stronger than ever before. We have troops in Afghanistan, but they appear to be there mainly poised to defend the central government, which has been threatened by a number of groups including the Taliban (the prior totalitarian government), war lords in various provinces, and a loose network of guerillas including the Al Qaeda group. The current Administration, led by President Bush, has apparently de-emphasized our military efforts in Afghanistan and his rhetoric, his use of the words “war on terror”, appear to be mainly directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan.

The number of deaths of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in this first military operation is 255 with 765 injured as of January 2006, as tracked by Wikipedia. I cite this figure in sharp contrast to the number of U.S. troops killed in the next military effort, still going on today, in Iraq which was 2,299 U.S. soldiers killed and 33,094 seriously injured as of March 2006 (cited at the site http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspxhttp://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The disparity between Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of dead and casualties is very revealing about what is being emphasized.

• The second group that we were fighting was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. It was a war declared by President Bush, with no real resistance from Congress. The enemy was a vague one – mainly the dictator, Saddam Hussein, who somehow had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was linked vaguely to “terrorists”, the same ones named in Afghanistan as being Al Qaeda. None of these reasons has proven to be true. I repeat: None of the reasons given for this war have been proven to be true. As cited above, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq as a result of this war. Because of what the President and his Administration have been saying, and repeating as a mantra, according to many surveys, many people in the U.S. believe, irrationally, that this war is being fought as a “war on terror.” This is simply not an accurate or true statement.

It appears that Iraq has three major ethnic groups that have never gotten along. When Saddam was in charge of the country, the Sunni controlled everything with an iron hand. The Shiites, although in the majority, had no political power. The Kurds, the third group, also had no power. Once Saddam’s forces were overcome by the U.S. forces, the Shiites grabbed political power, the Kurds grabbed the northern part of the country, and the Sunni who had control and resented losing it have begun conducting an insurgency. The Shiites and the Sunni both have deep hatred of each other; it is obvious that the Sunni aren’t used to being out of power, and the Shiites resent all of the terrible things that were done to their people when the Sunni were in power. This is has led to brutal killings, with our troops in the middle, mainly siding with the Shiite majority. The country at this time may be in civil war.

Our troops really aren’t fighting “terror” or “terrorists” here. They are actually intervening in an internal conflict that has been going on for a long time back to when England and Winston Churchill was involved. I will add that there have been instances of non-Iraqi individuals crossing the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran to attack American military forces, and some of these individuals may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that is not the biggest part of the problem. In fact, because of our invasion of Iraq and our destruction of the status quo, by eliminating Saddam Hussein, it may be that we have opened a whole new breeding ground for, and encouraged, these individuals to learn how to operate successfully and conduct terrorist operations.

Iraq thus appears to be involved in a civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites, with Kurds protecting their interests, and some outsiders conducting guerilla terrorist operations aimed at fomenting unrest and driving the U.S. forces out. We cannot be involved in a “war on terror” here because there are at least four separate parties here, and it isn’t always clear who is doing what to hurt or kill whom.

• A third arena whom we are not fighting is North Korea, a dictatorship that is working to build an atomic bomb capability. This country is a military threat to South Korea because it possesses a huge standing army of more than a million soldiers. It is a country with a well-defined government, not a loosely organized group of individuals. We have not declared war on them, nor have they declared war on the U.S. But for some reason, at times, they have been included in this “war on terror.”

• A fourth arena that is also sometimes referred to under the mantra of “war on terror” is Iran. Iran is the largest country in the Middle East, with a government that is primarily run by its religious right. They may provide a place for Al Qaeda and other groups which dislike the U.S. for various reasons to develop and train members. We are not at war with Iran, and they are not at war with us. But, for some reason, they also have been lumped into this “war on terror”.

• There are other places in the world, such as South America and the Philippines, that have been also lumped into this “war on terror”, but, again, we have not declared war on them nor have they declared war on the U.S. Numerous groups, some of which hate the U.S. and some involved in insurgencies against their existing government, have the earmarks of “terrorists” in that they conduct underground operations, kill people indiscriminately, have loose organizations, may or may not be linked to other similar organizations.

• In general, it is also important to separate different types of terrorists (a very maligned word) into specific and different groups. For example, Basque separatists, in Spain, commit what we would call terrorist acts. So do the Tamil Tigers in northern Sri Lanka. They can both be called “terrorists.” Please note that, although these groups commit acts that seem to be terrorist acts, such as blowing up bombs in public places and killed innocent civilians, both of these groups are internal in their countries and act much as if they were engaged in a civil war against their existing government.

• So we are not at war with all of the groups I’ve mentioned. We couldn’t be. Many of them have no government for us to declare war on. It is sloppy use of communication to say that we are engaged in a “war on terror” when we really need to understand that there are many such groups around the world, each separate and different, each requiring different tactics, each posing a different type of threat (in some cases, no threat) to our country.

Please remember that next time you hear these words. If you understand what has been said here, you will be able to determine how absurd such a claim is (“war on terror”) and look at what the person saying these words is really trying to do. He or she may be trying to scare you so you don’t think clearly; he or she may be pushing an agenda to take rights away from you; he or she may be saying such words to get elected again; or to be considered “patriotic” or “strong” or “effective”. Always listen to the words and match them to the actions. The outcome may surprise you and open your eyes to what is actually going on.

It's been one day. None of the U.S. media coverage has pointed to any solid information about who carried this out, nor have there been any statements carried here from the Indian government that would cause bloggers to start thinking about our government's relationship with Pakistan. Or, alternatively, about the opening of a new front for Al Qaeda brand terror.

There has also been a vast, near-deafening silence from U.S. politicians and columnists about Israel's escalation, and from liberal (not left) political bloggers here -- who are far more familiar with the situation and its implications than they are with the India-Pakistan conflict.

Your suggestions of reasons why the bombings ought to play into political bloggers' concerns depend heavily on much more being known about the perpetrators. Until that information becomes available, only those bloggers willing to speculate heavily in the absence of any information are going to talk about an event this horrific in a political framework. Those of us relatively ignorant of the context and not completely consumed by the need to grind every phenomenon on earth through an ideological framework are still responding to it on a human level.

India is an alien civilization. Westerners do not share the spiritual and cultural premises of Indians. Madrid and London are part of Christendom. Mumbai is not. For some strange reason Indians expect the West to take the same interest in India that the west takes in Britain and Spain.

Stop complaining about what the other bloggers are doing. You are a blogger. You are responsible for the state of the blogosphere. If you want to see the Mumbai bombings covered, cover the Mumbai bombings.

You've got your starting points. Now follow them up.

At the very least, you could provide a slew of links to interesting coverage of Mumbai. And why are you wasting time looking for that coverage on American political blogs, which are twelve time zones away and are explicitly dedicated to other topics? Why not link to... blogs written in India? Blogs written by experts on India or Pakistan? Blogs written by people who live in Mumbai and actually ride the trains, and by their friends and family members?

I don't quite understand the outrage at the bloggity blog bloggers. I think that you may be asking too much of political bloggers and of Americans.

I've riden those Mumbia commuter trains, and was frankly surprised that the official death toll was not higher. At rush hour? It is physically impossible to fit additional riders in or outside the cars... And security? Not at the stations that I visited.

The bombings are atrocities of the worst kind. People I talk to here in California are pissed off, but they take it in context.

India has a recent and vibrant history of political violence. Mumbaikar's have experienced similar bombings in 1993, where 13 bombs were set claiming 257 lives and leaving 1,400 others injured. I've been in Varanasi during a small Naxalite bombing in February 2005, it was incredibly scary but it was not uncommon. Perhaps I'm proliferating a horrible stereotype, but from my experience, Indians value Gandhi Ji but are quick to practice more passionate methods of conflict resolution a la Bhagat Singh. So when Indians blow each other up, sometimes people aren't so shocked.

I'm not rationalizing United States citizen's general doofusity, or refusal to acknowledge that other countries and cultures inhabit the planet. We are self centered greedy simpletons steeped in cultural paranoia and family baggage like manifest destiny and slavery. To most of us, Central America is Kansas.

I'm always amazed at the level of awareness that Indians cultivate on world affairs. I have to study up on my Indian political gossip before I go, because I know that I will get a ton of folks asking me about US politicians and domestic policy. If you hold us up to your own standards of curiosity and empathy, you will surely be dissappointed.

I will say this. It is very uninformed analysis to make it a state-sponsored issue. Who are the dumbasses advising India to bomb Bangladesh and Pakistan? Jealous cricket fans!

I went to India for the first time in January. Great country and yes, I knew they were brown before I went there but I went anyway (all white people are racists, aren't they?-Jeeze!) and everyone kept telling me how obsessed Americans are with terrorism. The people I met loved to contrast this with how Indians carry on stoically even though terrorism is an unfortunate reality in their country.

My impression is Americans (bloggers, MSM and regular people) hyperventilate at all domestic news but we take our cues from the locals when it comes to international news. When the locals react by just carrying on as before, we tend to react similarly. Rich countries, like the ones in Europe, have a well-equipped news infrastructure, with big government agencies and a culture that also likes to obsess over news (not to the level of the US though).

My sympathies go out to the people of India.

Okay, it's like, how many people blog about Mumbai's sister city, Pune
besides myself ? I'm glad that you raised the question.
Frankly, I've learned to blog on in myopic silence.

http://virtualpoona.blogspot.com/2006/07/mumbai-mourns.html

I have to study up on my Indian political gossip before I go, because I know that I will get a ton of folks asking me about US politicians and domestic policy. If you hold us up to your own standards of curiosity and empathy, you will surely be dissappointed.

Highmay and a few others, just so you know all the bloggers at this website are American Citizens with one Canadian. ~66% of our readers are American as well.

I haven't read the comments thread so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating something someone else said:

imo, the u.s. portion of the blogosphere that's concerned with politics is highly focused on partisan electoral politics. It also probably reflects the ordinary myopia of many Americans to events in the rest of the world--particularly those parts of the world that they probably can't see themselves in. Also, blog coverage tends to be driven by news media coverage.

btw, I think you give CNN far too much credit. I watched a limited amount of coverage yesterday (on Wolf Blitzer) and it was fairly bad (worst case was side by side images of a train being evacuated in Chicago b/c of who knows what yesterday afternoon and the aftermath of the bombing in Mumbai).

-s

btw, I think you give CNN far too much credit. I watched a limited amount of coverage yesterday (on Wolf Blitzer) and it was fairly bad (worst case was side by side images of a train being evacuated in Chicago b/c of who knows what yesterday afternoon and the aftermath of the bombing in Mumbai).

Uggghhh. That is unfortunate. They used similar sensationalistic imagery after those weird cult members were arrested in Florida a few weeks ago.

http://www.indianpad.com/view.php?id=7212 . In memorium

Re #56 Frankly Frank. Christendom !!! Please attend a Sunday Mass in Bombay AND London, then talk?

I posted it. And noted that it was another 11th of the month. And wondered where was the outcry. Thanks for mentioning it.

I'm with Nell (#75). I'd hate to accuse the blogosphere of responsible journalism, but anything is speculation at this point, since no one has stepped forward and claimed responsibility, and the Indian government is still investigating:

Both Union Home Secretary, V K Duggal, and Maharashtra Police chief, P S Pasricha, said "some leads" had been found in the probe into the seven blasts in thetrains. They did not give details.

"We have leads about the Mumbai blasts but no arrests have been made," Duggal told reporters in Delhi. "We are confident of getting to the culprits very soon."

In Mumbai, Pasricha said, "Taking into ac