Two problems with the current state of news coverage: 1. For better or worse, English media are considered global media, because English is the de facto lingua

Two problems with the current state of news coverage: 1. For better or worse, English media are considered global media, because English is the de facto lingua franca. Things which are covered in English media reach global audience, while those which are not never travel outside of the local region they were reported in. New York Times does not just cover New York news, or Washington Post Washington's. They are international publications serving an international audience. 2. Because of the lopsided news coverage, many have developed a lopsided view of the state of the world. These people then elect leaders and support policies based on these views, and these have far-reaching consequences for the entire world, not just the electorate. For example, during the refugee crisis many in US and Canada were complaining about accepting so many refugees, saying that the numbers are ridiculous and the politicians who support it are out of touch, that the countries could not possibly afford hosting so many refugees. They complained about US and Canada taking so much of burden of the refugee crisis and questioned why the countries in the region don't do more, instead of sending people thousands of kilometres to live in a faraway country. In reality, US and Canada were not doing that much. They each admit less than 50,000 refugees per year. Meanwhile, Lebanon, a small country of about 5 million people, have already accepted 2.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees. Meaning that a third of the country's population are now refugees. People don't have a clear view of the state of the world, because the media presents a lopsided view. It is not without merit to try to present a more well-rounded view.