4 ms·

> In this case nothing is stuck, ships are just taking a slower route. that might be what parent is mentioning : this alternative route was sold to the news-vi

by serf 3y ago

> In this case nothing is stuck, ships are just taking a slower route. that might be what parent is mentioning : this alternative route was sold to the news-viewing public as absolutely impossible and untenable when producing profit over time -- they were told that the suez canal was of vital importance and that trade must halt until it was cleared. and now suddenly, not much time afterwards, the threat of violence has prompted the realization that there are clear and viable alternatives to the suez canal. the 180 on the importance of the canal feels telling, but I don't know how. I presume it's an effort to keep public opinion from desiring a strong military response in the area. It feels like election-time stalling so that "Cleaning up the Red Sea" can be a political talking point during election season -- but I hate to be so cynical as to think we're ignoring a global political partner for the sake of a politician having an ace up their sleeve during debates.

burkaman 3y ago
I really have to disagree, I'm not sure your memory is representative of the coverage most people saw. I'm looking at the New York Times, which I think is a good example of mainstream US news. While the Ever Given was stuck, they reported stuff like: > With each day that the Ever Given container ship remains stuck in the Suez Canal, the cost of the disruption grows more consequential. After days of failed efforts to move the mammoth ship, shipowners began rerouting ships bound for the Suez Canal around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to their journeys and burning additional fuel — a cost ultimately borne by consumers. When deciding whether to divert, a shipping company must consider the cost of sitting for days outside the canal versus the added time of steaming around Africa. It is not an easy choice. Today the Red Sea crisis is front page news, and their story leads with: > They can send their vessels through the Red Sea if they are willing to risk attacks by the Houthi militia in Yemen and to bear the cost of sharply higher insurance premiums. Or they can sail an extra 4,000 miles around Africa, adding 10 days in each direction and burning considerably more fuel. Neither option is appealing and both raise costs — expenses that analysts said could ultimately be borne by consumers through higher prices on the goods they buy. Basically the same, even using the exact same phrase about consumers. This was just one example, but when I look at coverage of Ever Given I see a general attitude of "damn this is terrible timing, supply chains were just starting to recover from the pandemic, this will cause a lot of problems". Nobody was declaring the end of the world or that "trade must halt". Today I don't see anyone downplaying the situation, at most I see a little bit less front-page placement because of the nature of the story.

by serf 3y ago

burkaman 3y ago

I really have to disagree, I'm not sure your memory is representative of the coverage most people saw. I'm looking at the New York Times, which I think is a good example of mainstream US news. While the Ever Given was stuck, they reported stuff like: > With each day that the Ever Given container ship remains stuck in the Suez Canal, the cost of the disruption grows more consequential. After days of failed efforts to move the mammoth ship, shipowners began rerouting ships bound for the Suez Canal around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to their journeys and burning additional fuel — a cost ultimately borne by consumers. When deciding whether to divert, a shipping company must consider the cost of sitting for days outside the canal versus the added time of steaming around Africa. It is not an easy choice. Today the Red Sea crisis is front page news, and their story leads with: > They can send their vessels through the Red Sea if they are willing to risk attacks by the Houthi militia in Yemen and to bear the cost of sharply higher insurance premiums. Or they can sail an extra 4,000 miles around Africa, adding 10 days in each direction and burning considerably more fuel. Neither option is appealing and both raise costs — expenses that analysts said could ultimately be borne by consumers through higher prices on the goods they buy. Basically the same, even using the exact same phrase about consumers. This was just one example, but when I look at coverage of Ever Given I see a general attitude of "damn this is terrible timing, supply chains were just starting to recover from the pandemic, this will cause a lot of problems". Nobody was declaring the end of the world or that "trade must halt". Today I don't see anyone downplaying the situation, at most I see a little bit less front-page placement because of the nature of the story.