Because of you, NY Times, because of you and your friends. You're literally the creators of attention to stuff, so please explain to us, why you chose to cover one war, and ignore another?
Isn't this pretty much exactly what the author is trying to talk about and explain? Note this quote:
> Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll
one of two things comes to mind, a certain political candidate will turn their focus towards this issue or that NYT is just getting out ahead of something the US will soon be involved in. I guess the sale of papers is slow and the march of imperialism by the US needs to be pushed again.
Honestly I do not get the NYT. They will push for wars and then turn around and claim to be bamboozled or such. Perhaps there are too many journalist there who think they can just make it happen if they write about it enough
> Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll