It appears it is receiving coverage in Britain, but then at one time it was a territory. And you share some political history. Here in the States I seen no mention of it. But then very little besides the economy and the Super Bowl are receiving coverage right now.
I really don't think that is what is motivating Sky news...a multi million pound global entity. It is there though. I googled Fox NBC CNN and ABC - honest. I do appreciate your cyincal tone though.
Well about the only tv news I watch is local news at five pm, and it does have a brief world coverage segment. I do watch the Today show most mornings, but have seen no mention of it there. I get most of my world news on the internet these days.
Strangely it was not high on my local news either. Perhaps a better Today show would be - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm If this is your "Today Show" agenda...I'm not suprised Sri Lanka has not been mentioned. Food & Wine Health Tech & Money Fashion & Beauty Entertainment Holiday Guide Video Player Makeover
Well I have a choice the Today Show or Good Morning America, before I go to work, and reception is better for the Today Show even with my shiny new converter box.
I can't bare watching the sacharine TV news in the morning. So, I just switch on the radio instead. The other Today show is a little bit more substantive. I'm sure you could recieve it through your computer. I do hear your computer is from 1975 though.
1999 actually and still going strong. My biggest drawback is I can only afford dialup at 48.00 annual fee. Someday when my financial outlook is better I may upgrade both. But for now it can handle my needs, and I use it for graphic design. But then it was a custom build, and high end for it's time. No 600.00 Dell.
Well, I was only 24 years out! It's been to long since I experinced dial up to appreciate the - I would imagine - low buffering speeds on the BBC website. I tend to get my info online too.
I can't stand TV news. Drives me nuts. Its like listening to the town crier or something, so archaic.
I think the reason it doesn't get attention in the media is because it is not easily boxed into Good vs Evil , Rich vs Poor that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict evokes . It's not a conspiracy but human nature, people don't seem to care about thousand or millions of children dying unless they can identify emotionally with it. In the Middle East conflict many Westerners can easily take sides -they might believe in Israel's right to defect itself, or that the West is under attack by Islamist or that the Zionism entity is threatening to overtake the world etc.. In the Sri-Lanka conflict both sides are equally poor , none are colonial and both are equally cruel (though the last bit is true for the mid east conflict as well), so there is little emotional involvement which makes the story less "important"
That's a good point. It seems like people need to be able to pick sides. When they see news about these third world conflicts they say, oh that's a horrible situation. It's different when, as you said, things can be divided into good and evil. Palestine/Israel is a good example, but you can also look at the conflict in Georgia over the summer. That was a huge news story, and it's easy to see why. Big, strong, evil Russia invades small, democratic, America-friendly Georgia.