[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.

[berntb]

As an addendum, seeing this a few days later, I'll add a note also about the other side of my claim, to be complete; the Swedish/European media I'm familiar with.

For any given year before the Syrian crisis, you could find kilometers of criticism of Israel. On the other hand, the first thing I saw over decades in Swedish about the Tunisian dictator was when he fled!

The criticism of Syria, easily one of the planet's worst police states even before the present atrocities, was a bit more than Tunisia -- but far from even one kilometer/year.

(Note that Syria was a large part of the Israeli conflict, so it should be discussed quite a lot.)

(Not hard data, but hardly arbitrarily. I could continue with mentioning that Pallywood and torture among Palestinian groups where just censored in Swedish. And so on, and on.)

But frankly, I think you knew this too.

[berntb]

>>hard numbers that you've basically made up.

Here are quick overviews of the facts I claimed in the GP:

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

http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_con...

But you knew that.

So it is easy to claim different standards as a factor of thousands. But you knew that, too.