3 ms·
That might be a relevant difference, but it's definitely not the difference. If the Paris bombings had happened in, say, Bhutan, do you think they would have at
by philh 11y ago
That might be a relevant difference, but it's definitely not the difference. If the Paris bombings had happened in, say, Bhutan, do you think they would have attracted the same coverage?
(AFAIK Bhutan doesn't have strong popular support for any terrorist organisations, but I mostly picked it at random. Feel free to pick another.)
- pmorici 11y agoI'm not sure, if it didn't it would be for different reasons. When you are talking about Beiruit specifically though it's a city that has the potential to be an international level city but has been prevented from attaining that by the political climate that embraces violence, has for decades, and continues to.
- philh 11y ago> if it didn't it would be for different reasons Unless you're quite confident that those would be reasons that don't also apply to Beirut - that's exactly what I was getting at. There is no "the difference". There are differences.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pmorici 11y agoI am, confident. Beirut is very similar to Paris, or New York in terms if it being a place that has strong international mind share. Bhutan is a place so out of the way that the terrorists wouldn't even know how to get there to attack it. CNN probably doesn't have an office in the country. It's a difference of notoriety vs. obscurity.