[Amadou]

Israel and Russia are considered 1st world countries. That implies a level of social progressivism and standards of living that 3rd world countries don't have. So when a country fails to live up to those standards they get criticism.

You might see that as propaganda, I see that as acknowledgement of reality. Everybody expects Israel to behave like the democracy they claim to be, nobody expects the Sudan - with its self-appointed president of nearly 25 years - to behave like a democracy. In other words, Sudan's problems are a symptom of Sudan's level of social progress, while Israel and Russia's problems are seen as an aberration in their level of social progress. You would never see the Olympics hosted in Sudan.

As for immigrants being criticized for holding 3rd world views after moving to a 1st world country, they don't have the kind of power that a government does so the harm they can do by acting on their beliefs is significantly less than what the state could do.

[berntb]

>> Israel and Russia are considered 1st world countries. [There are higher standards for them]

I acknowledged that when I wrote "How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?"

So, how many factors of ten higher standards should be held for Israel than for, say, the countries that spend a large part of their GNP on artillery for use on civilians?

3? 4?

(I've asked that multiple times and never gotten an answer when people repeat your argument. Including in what you comment on.)

>> Sudan's problems are a symptom of Sudan's level of social progress

I also brought up that at least Swedish media avoid mentioning that the dictators taking control of the UNHRC and not complaining about each others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou...

That is not explained by you thinking it is OK to have a factor thousands in different standards.

>>As for immigrants being criticized for holding 3rd world views after moving to a 1st world country, they don't have the kind of power that a government does

You really see no problem having factors of ten different standards for different groups of citizens inside a country?

Besides, I think you simplify (on the border of excusing) unpleasant regimes that oppress, mass murder and steal -- when you just describe the reason as "different levels of social progress". Countries today are poor mainly because they are controlled by corrupt juntas (or in a conflict, usually created by juntas). Every country on the planet with population over a few millions can and should have a competent government.

[Amadou]

"How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?"

That is hyperbole. You've quantified something that is not really quantifiable. As long as that is your argument you'll got no satisfactory answer. All you are doing is begging the question.

[berntb]

>> [E.g. Sudan's atrocities is at least a factor thousand worse than anything from Israel] is hyperbole.

And that is not an argument. I motivated my position, you're calling names.

I wrote specifically that Sudan is at least a thousand times worse than Israel -- even with a Palestinian description (where e.g. killing people attacking civilians is not self defence). Look at number of dead, rapes, deportations etc etc -- what is NOT a thousand times worse?

If we can't quantify e.g. human rights violations we should close down international law.

Etc.

[Amadou]

Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism.

[berntb]

Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with.

>> Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism

Well, no.

One is at least a thousand times larger than the other in effect.

The criticism (in my local Swedish and from much of the European media) is much larger. See e.g. the UNHRC discussion above. That is all I need for my thesis to not be "hyperbole".

Notes: 1. Since the Syrian situation started it has been very quiet re Israel, the different standards would probably be too obvious. 2. Serious media, e.g. BBC/NY Times, was (well, by definition) more serious than bad media.

[Amadou]

Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with.

Yes, I started off explaining why there is relatively unbalanced coverage.

You made it clear that your argument is based on hard numbers that you've basically made up. So now I am pointing out that making up hard numbers and not accepting arguments that don't precisely fit your arbitrary numbers is just a form of rhetoric. Measuring the effect of coverage is even more arbitrary. "Effect" is something so vague that there aren't even any units to measure it.

You will not receive any satisfactory answers because you have designed the question to be unanswerable so as to advocate a position rather than seek an explanation.