255 thoughts on “Deafening silence in the blogosphere”

1. I don’t think the facts bear this out. Just take a look at the varous Left/right sites. The Nation vs. National review, Huffingtonpost vs. drudge, common dreams.org vs realclearpolitics, talkinpointmemo vs. instapundit, kos vs. LGF.

   I have. Some of those sites I consider “frothing at the mouth right wing” and I don’t think they are the basis for fair comparison. Drudge and Huffpost are however and they gave very similar coverage. Drudge no longer even has a link to any Mumbai stories. I refresh Drude almost as often as I refresh SM so believe me when I say that he is ignoring this. Instapundit has a long-standing habit of quoting Amit Varma and the Indian blogosphere. With him its not because he is on the right politically.

   It shows terrorists always have gripes and that those who stress changing US foreign policy in order to placate them are being shortsighted.

   Ha. That is YOUR interpretation and one that I might call very shortsighted. 🙂

   they hate all people that are different from them.

   Again. Shockingly oversimplified in my opinion.

   On this I agree. And that is kinda my whole point.

   I think you know which side of the debate I’m on and I love a healthy debate.

2. We may understand the subtle undercurrents, but do most MSM and bloggers? They just don’t have the background for it. This is natural.

   I think you’re selling the blogosphere short. They’ve heard of Musharraf. They know that he’s a major US ally. News stories indicate that Pakistan may have been supporting whoever was involved in the bombings. That means that our ally is supporting terrorism. Furthermore, if India acts the way that the US does, then there might be a retaliation in the offing. Bloggers know that India and Pakistan have nukes and don’t get along. They can see that this might be very bad.

   The potential of a nuclear confrontation is not very subtle. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I am saying that it’s something to be concerned about. It’s the sort of foreign policy story that US political bloggers should be interested in.

3. Joe/15 – I agree that the time differences from Seoul was a factor, good point. And I agree there would have been a lot of interest had Mexico advanced. But I don’t think either point negates mine. Mexico is a bordering country, not to mention in the news an awful lot of late. And we obvioulsy have a lot of Mexcian-Americans citizens, so ethnocentricism is still in play. Mexico is not India.

   And it’s Jones, not Brown, but I know the drill: You see one ultra-common name, you’ve seen ’em all. 😉

4. Vikram – I was looking at political blogs, most of which usually write extensively on US foreign policy. It’s weird that they’re ignoring this recent, highly salient, event.

   Ennis: The Israel/Hezbollah situation is what is uppermost on most (Western) political blogs . And I daresay that since US foreign policy is so deeply entwined with what happens in that part of the world, that everything else pales in comparison. On the other hand, if India mobilizes troops on the Indo-Pak border as it did after the 2001 Parliament attack, the political bloggers will refocus on India, because Pakistan is of strategic importance to the US and such a situation would then affect the US foreign policy.

5. The New York Times and the BBC had a LOT of coverage on their web sites. I can’t speak for TV since I don’t have a TV now. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post had Op-Eds today, but no editorial comment.

   As far as Beslan goes, it got a lot of coverage in the NYTimes, the BBC and a little less elsewhere.

   The Bloggers who commented (like some of the messages on the BBC site) try to fit into their neat little ideological compartments — LGF links to it to reinforce its thrust that all Muslims are terrorists, Dkos diarists to make some silly comment about whether its Mumbai or Bombay. Most know little about India, I suspect.

   But in general, TV and local media coverage for events goes like this

   Terrorism in US: Front PAge news for months Terrorism in West Europe: Major news, especially if its London. Terrorism in Israel: Each particular incident gets a lot of attention (but there are a lot) Terrorism in India: Very little attention unless India threatens to use nukes Africa: Where is that ? Is that where Angelina Jolie went to have her baby ? Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

6. Drudge no longer even has a link to any Mumbai stories. I refresh Drude almost as often as I refresh SM so believe me when I say that he is ignoring this.

   Drudge still has it up. I hotlink, you decide. (righ side, about 7 down from picture)

   I didn’t mean to debate the reasons why an event like this helps the American right or whether these conclusions are legit, just that they exist and the right will obviously make them, while the left has no obvious response to the event, other than sadness and condolences which sadly, many of them did not even offer.

7. Ennis:

   I’m not trying to sell them short in the sense that they don’t have the information infront of them. But having a bunch of random facts floating around in one’s head vs. connecting the dots are completely different things.

   Bloggers also like to post stories that, ultimately, are well read/circulated. The self crowned big boys cherish their popularity. Overall, does the American public understand the nuances here? Just because a blogger is popular doesn’t mean he/she is competant or qualified (as the Abhi’s like to CQ showed). Slapping the blogger or journalist title on doesn’t make one more aware/educated. It just gives you a soapbox to launch your content from. It could be good, bad, popular but without value, or unpopular, yet very insightful.

   Sites like this one and a few others have good content. But the MSM and widely read blogs that believe THEY are the reasons why people go there, not the content. In some ways, it shows how far we all have to go in getting the word out.

8. Drudge still has it up. I hotlink, you decide. (righ side, about 7 down from picture)

   Yes you are right, it is sort of buried there on the right. With the London and Madrid attacks he had it as the main headline every day with new pics. Right now two missing Israeli soldiers are more important.

9. If CBS figures that an airhead like Katie Couric has the (mental) qualifications to be its primetime news anchor then it should be no surprise as to why TV news is not the place if anyone wants to follow world affairs. It is all about ratings and fluff topics where what the anchor wears is of more importance than the content of the news.

10. Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

    true that. Lacey Petersen and that chick who went missing in Aruba were top stories for months… nothing new had developed, but the MSM kept rehashing it daily.

11. Ummm, #55 isn’t me — I have a TV and it’s on all the time. That said:

    Africa: Where is that ? Is that where Angelina Jolie went to have her baby ? Missing or Dead white girl/woman in the US: Major news for months.

    Very hard to argue with this analysis — and if it’s a young white woman missing in Aruba, there will be hourly updates on every network. 🙂

12. This whole thing makes me wonder why Pakistan is treated so gingerly. In the earlier posts, does AQ refer to AQ Khan? How can this country, which we are not sure was involved in this attack, get away with what we do know about them? AQ Khan still operating his black market nukes, Bin Laden still living there, what more is needed?

13. I have a TV and it’s on all the time.

    HELL YES!!

14. Someone brought up this issue in one of the larger Bombay threads and commented on Americans’ general disinterest in foreigners. Unfortunately the issue goes much deeper than this. Upper middle class Americans just aren’t that concerned about those outside their circle, whether they live in the United States or abroad. All of the media outlets mentioned here are designed to speak to and for them… so their content is adjusted accordingly.

    I’m sure most of you can recall the oddly muted news coverage of and public reaction to Hurricane Katrina last year. Outside of a few blogs and the 24/7 news channels, it was pretty much business as usual across the country. The regular networks devoted less special coverage than they did to the death of JFK Jr. or the(long expected) death of Ronald Reagan. No sporting events were cancelled. Flags remained at full staff… at least until Justice Rehnquist died. There was only a half-hearted attempt at a national day of prayer… which was postponed so as not to conflict with the 4th anniversary observation of 9/11.

    The reactions I observed while at work and other public places were nothing like the numbness after 9/11. I was reminded instead of accounts by Americans who were abroad on that day. The people around me were concerned… but not that concerned. Something huge and horrible had happened… but it had happened somewhere very far away. In the immortal words of the Narendra Modi troll, “those were not their people.” President Bush and his associates were rebuked after the fact for their inaction… but nobody else at the time seemed all that interested either. It took many days and weeks for Katrina to mature as news story… and this happened after players on both the Left and the Right realized the political capital that was there for the taking.

    Worse yet was the small… but far from inconsequential… minority that saw this event as a triumph instead of a disaster. They saw the outcome as a just verdict and expressed satisfaction at the punishment delivered to the victims. Their statements, with just a few key words changed, could have been used as communiques by Hamas or Al Qaeda…

    There are certainly plenty of bigots in play… but the central issue is class, not race. Right now the people that “matter” in this country have little use for those that are not like them… be they brown folks in Bombay or poor blacks and rednecks in Louisiana and Mississippi. This country has become increasingly divided in recent years.. the sense of shared identity and common cause so painstakingly nurtured through the New Deal, World War II and the Civil Rights era has begun to wither. The recent debate immigrants legal and illegal is just a sideshow. The more troubling issue is the number of Americans who view other Americans essentially as foreigners inside their borders. The level of social and political discourse in this country has declined accordingly…

15. We’re hardly top-tier, but for what it’s worth, our thoughts are with the victims.

16. Upper middle class Americans just aren’t that concerned about those outside their circle, whether they live in the United States or abroad.

    as opposed to lower or lower-middle class or middle class? cosmpolitanism is positively correlated with SES. don’t muddy your point with class-talk when it works against it.

17. You’re wondering why American political blogs are not posting about a tragedy that doesn’t involve American politics. We are not involved in the Pakisatan-India situation at all, so commenting on the horrifying tragedy would simply be saying, “This is so sad.” That should be understood.

18. Cosmpolitanism is positively correlated with SES.

    Historically, yes. The problem is that this group appears to be becoming less engaged with and interested in outsiders over time. Much of their past activism may have been patronizing or misguided… but I don’t think indifference is a better solution…

19. I have a TV and it’s on all the time.

    HELL YES!!

    Hey, how else would I keep up with the Couch Barnacles of the world? Just think of all the late night 1980s movie reruns I’d miss — and if that happened, I might soon be put on probation on this site, if not outright banned, and sent straight to remedial pop culture literacy classes. 😉

20. NAR:

    You’re wondering why American political blogs are not posting about a tragedy that doesn’t involve American politics. We are not involved in the Pakisatan-India situation at all, so commenting on the horrifying tragedy would simply be saying, “This is so sad.” That should be understood.

    America is involved in the Pak-India situation as the nuke deal and Bush’s recent trip to the subcont showed. The bombings also cannot be seen merely thru the lens of this situation, as there may even be an Al Qaeda link, and there is certainly a radical Islam link. This is not relevent to american politics?

    “This is so sad,” is a good starter, but we are not talking about a natural disaster.

21. Austin Bay had a link shortly after the attacks here.

22. If not now, when would be a better time for the likes of Fareed Zakaria and Somini Sengupta to represent and educate? NPR had a an interview with an ex head of Indian intelligence , a Mr. Bhagat. We need more of such.

23. NAR, In that case the London bombings were relevant how? After all the bombers were all British, so wasn’t it a local homegrown terrorist problem? Your post is breathtakingly parochial. The same organizations that do this in India are involved in attacks against US soldiers in Afghanistan, and are a part of the networks that form “Al Qaeda”.

24. Re: Your statement saying: “On the other hand, if the bombings were actually committed by a new group connected to Al-Qaeda, this marks the opening of a significant new front in the “Global War on Terror”. Al-Qaeda activities are of clear importance to America.”

    How many times do we have to be reminded? There is no (quote) “war on terror” (unquote). It is a stupid statement, and IÂ’ll explain why in a moment. I donÂ’t mean that as a pejorative. It is too easy to slip into. And to repeat it, or give it any credence, is to help spread a lie, a deliberate attempt at propaganda, or a statement by a person who does not know what he or she is talking about. I find that the newspapers and television, as well as “blogs” on the internet, all use the phrase “war on terror” and it does everyone a disservice. Google alone states that there are 137,000,000 references to this phase.

    When our President, George Bush, says those words, he is talking non-sense. So is anyone else using these words.

    The words are inflammatory, and their ultimate effect often deliberately to cause people to suspend any rational judgment about the things the speaker wants to do because of this so-called “War on Terror.” When rational judgment is suspended, people will do anything no matter how ineffective it is because of the emotional mind-clouding power, and the fear it gives rise to, when such meaningless words are used.

    It is also extremely sloppy journalism to repeat this phase, except as a direct quote, because it is meaningless. It is as meaningless as “war on laziness” or the “war on weather.” Journalists seem never to have heard of semantics, which looks at the meaning of words and how their use affects us.

    Right now, we as a country are involved in a number of situations, some dangerous, some not, one or two very separate wars, some diplomatic efforts, and a very diverse set of circumstances that may possibly threaten our way of life, and we, as a country, appear to be afraid of a number of diversified groups of people who reside in various countries. We are also, as a country, possibly threatened in a number of ways by a number of countries, as opposed to small scattered groups of people. All of these have been lumped together into a catch phrase that is entirely meaningless, namely a “war on terror.”

    If we can define what these groups and countries are and distinguish how they differ from one another, it can help us to understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and what the characteristics of all this mixed up “war on terror” might really mean. This, of course, immediately implies that there is no one single opponent against whom we can wage war, but instead presents a variety of different situations, some more dangerous than others, each of them requiring that we handle them, as best we can, in different ways if we want to reduce any threat they pose.

    • The first group of people that we claim to be fighting with is a vaguely defined group, once led by a man named Bin Laden, that calls itself Al Qaeda. It appears to be based in Afghanistan, but may have spread to various other countries. It is a loosely-knit, guerrilla group that dislikes “the West”, vaguely defined as European and American countries. We don’t know nearly enough about it to be “at war” with this group because it is so diffuse, and it is all too easy to confuse it with other groups at times. It is not certain that its leaders are alive or have control over this group because it is so diffuse. Originally, it was most probably responsible for the event known as “9/11”. We, as a country under President Bush, claim to be fighting this group but appear to have lost interest in pursuing this group forcefully.

    I say “claim to be fighting” because, for all of our efforts, we have never caught Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda appears to be stronger than ever before. We have troops in Afghanistan, but they appear to be there mainly poised to defend the central government, which has been threatened by a number of groups including the Taliban (the prior totalitarian government), war lords in various provinces, and a loose network of guerillas including the Al Qaeda group. The current Administration, led by President Bush, has apparently de-emphasized our military efforts in Afghanistan and his rhetoric, his use of the words “war on terror”, appear to be mainly directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    The number of deaths of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in this first military operation is 255 with 765 injured as of January 2006, as tracked by Wikipedia. I cite this figure in sharp contrast to the number of U.S. troops killed in the next military effort, still going on today, in Iraq which was 2,299 U.S. soldiers killed and 33,094 seriously injured as of March 2006 (cited at the site http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspxhttp://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The disparity between Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of dead and casualties is very revealing about what is being emphasized.

    • The second group that we were fighting was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. It was a war declared by President Bush, with no real resistance from Congress. The enemy was a vague one – mainly the dictator, Saddam Hussein, who somehow had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was linked vaguely to “terrorists”, the same ones named in Afghanistan as being Al Qaeda. None of these reasons has proven to be true. I repeat: None of the reasons given for this war have been proven to be true. As cited above, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq as a result of this war. Because of what the President and his Administration have been saying, and repeating as a mantra, according to many surveys, many people in the U.S. believe, irrationally, that this war is being fought as a “war on terror.” This is simply not an accurate or true statement.

    It appears that Iraq has three major ethnic groups that have never gotten along. When Saddam was in charge of the country, the Sunni controlled everything with an iron hand. The Shiites, although in the majority, had no political power. The Kurds, the third group, also had no power. Once SaddamÂ’s forces were overcome by the U.S. forces, the Shiites grabbed political power, the Kurds grabbed the northern part of the country, and the Sunni who had control and resented losing it have begun conducting an insurgency. The Shiites and the Sunni both have deep hatred of each other; it is obvious that the Sunni arenÂ’t used to being out of power, and the Shiites resent all of the terrible things that were done to their people when the Sunni were in power. This is has led to brutal killings, with our troops in the middle, mainly siding with the Shiite majority. The country at this time may be in civil war.

    Our troops really aren’t fighting “terror” or “terrorists” here. They are actually intervening in an internal conflict that has been going on for a long time back to when England and Winston Churchill was involved. I will add that there have been instances of non-Iraqi individuals crossing the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran to attack American military forces, and some of these individuals may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that is not the biggest part of the problem. In fact, because of our invasion of Iraq and our destruction of the status quo, by eliminating Saddam Hussein, it may be that we have opened a whole new breeding ground for, and encouraged, these individuals to learn how to operate successfully and conduct terrorist operations.

    Iraq thus appears to be involved in a civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites, with Kurds protecting their interests, and some outsiders conducting guerilla terrorist operations aimed at fomenting unrest and driving the U.S. forces out. We cannot be involved in a “war on terror” here because there are at least four separate parties here, and it isn’t always clear who is doing what to hurt or kill whom.

    • A third arena whom we are not fighting is North Korea, a dictatorship that is working to build an atomic bomb capability. This country is a military threat to South Korea because it possesses a huge standing army of more than a million soldiers. It is a country with a well-defined government, not a loosely organized group of individuals. We have not declared war on them, nor have they declared war on the U.S. But for some reason, at times, they have been included in this “war on terror.”

    • A fourth arena that is also sometimes referred to under the mantra of “war on terror” is Iran. Iran is the largest country in the Middle East, with a government that is primarily run by its religious right. They may provide a place for Al Qaeda and other groups which dislike the U.S. for various reasons to develop and train members. We are not at war with Iran, and they are not at war with us. But, for some reason, they also have been lumped into this “war on terror”.

    • There are other places in the world, such as South America and the Philippines, that have been also lumped into this “war on terror”, but, again, we have not declared war on them nor have they declared war on the U.S. Numerous groups, some of which hate the U.S. and some involved in insurgencies against their existing government, have the earmarks of “terrorists” in that they conduct underground operations, kill people indiscriminately, have loose organizations, may or may not be linked to other similar organizations.

    • In general, it is also important to separate different types of terrorists (a very maligned word) into specific and different groups. For example, Basque separatists, in Spain, commit what we would call terrorist acts. So do the Tamil Tigers in northern Sri Lanka. They can both be called “terrorists.” Please note that, although these groups commit acts that seem to be terrorist acts, such as blowing up bombs in public places and killed innocent civilians, both of these groups are internal in their countries and act much as if they were engaged in a civil war against their existing government.

    • So we are not at war with all of the groups I’ve mentioned. We couldn’t be. Many of them have no government for us to declare war on. It is sloppy use of communication to say that we are engaged in a “war on terror” when we really need to understand that there are many such groups around the world, each separate and different, each requiring different tactics, each posing a different type of threat (in some cases, no threat) to our country.

    Please remember that next time you hear these words. If you understand what has been said here, you will be able to determine how absurd such a claim is (“war on terror”) and look at what the person saying these words is really trying to do. He or she may be trying to scare you so you don’t think clearly; he or she may be pushing an agenda to take rights away from you; he or she may be saying such words to get elected again; or to be considered “patriotic” or “strong” or “effective”. Always listen to the words and match them to the actions. The outcome may surprise you and open your eyes to what is actually going on.

25. It’s been one day. None of the U.S. media coverage has pointed to any solid information about who carried this out, nor have there been any statements carried here from the Indian government that would cause bloggers to start thinking about our government’s relationship with Pakistan. Or, alternatively, about the opening of a new front for Al Qaeda brand terror.

    There has also been a vast, near-deafening silence from U.S. politicians and columnists about Israel’s escalation, and from liberal (not left) political bloggers here — who are far more familiar with the situation and its implications than they are with the India-Pakistan conflict.

    Your suggestions of reasons why the bombings ought to play into political bloggers’ concerns depend heavily on much more being known about the perpetrators. Until that information becomes available, only those bloggers willing to speculate heavily in the absence of any information are going to talk about an event this horrific in a political framework. Those of us relatively ignorant of the context and not completely consumed by the need to grind every phenomenon on earth through an ideological framework are still responding to it on a human level.

26. India is an alien civilization. Westerners do not share the spiritual and cultural premises of Indians. Madrid and London are part of Christendom. Mumbai is not. For some strange reason Indians expect the West to take the same interest in India that the west takes in Britain and Spain.

27. Stop complaining about what the other bloggers are doing. You are a blogger. You are responsible for the state of the blogosphere. If you want to see the Mumbai bombings covered, cover the Mumbai bombings.

    You’ve got your starting points. Now follow them up.

    At the very least, you could provide a slew of links to interesting coverage of Mumbai. And why are you wasting time looking for that coverage on American political blogs, which are twelve time zones away and are explicitly dedicated to other topics? Why not link to… blogs written in India? Blogs written by experts on India or Pakistan? Blogs written by people who live in Mumbai and actually ride the trains, and by their friends and family members?

28. I don’t quite understand the outrage at the bloggity blog bloggers. I think that you may be asking too much of political bloggers and of Americans.

    I’ve riden those Mumbia commuter trains, and was frankly surprised that the official death toll was not higher. At rush hour? It is physically impossible to fit additional riders in or outside the cars… And security? Not at the stations that I visited.

    The bombings are atrocities of the worst kind. People I talk to here in California are pissed off, but they take it in context.

    India has a recent and vibrant history of political violence. Mumbaikar’s have experienced similar bombings in 1993, where 13 bombs were set claiming 257 lives and leaving 1,400 others injured. I’ve been in Varanasi during a small Naxalite bombing in February 2005, it was incredibly scary but it was not uncommon. Perhaps I’m proliferating a horrible stereotype, but from my experience, Indians value Gandhi Ji but are quick to practice more passionate methods of conflict resolution a la Bhagat Singh. So when Indians blow each other up, sometimes people aren’t so shocked.

    I’m not rationalizing United States citizen’s general doofusity, or refusal to acknowledge that other countries and cultures inhabit the planet. We are self centered greedy simpletons steeped in cultural paranoia and family baggage like manifest destiny and slavery. To most of us, Central America is Kansas.

    I’m always amazed at the level of awareness that Indians cultivate on world affairs. I have to study up on my Indian political gossip before I go, because I know that I will get a ton of folks asking me about US politicians and domestic policy. If you hold us up to your own standards of curiosity and empathy, you will surely be dissappointed.

    I will say this. It is very uninformed analysis to make it a state-sponsored issue. Who are the dumbasses advising India to bomb Bangladesh and Pakistan? Jealous cricket fans!

29. I went to India for the first time in January. Great country and yes, I knew they were brown before I went there but I went anyway (all white people are racists, aren’t they?-Jeeze!) and everyone kept telling me how obsessed Americans are with terrorism. The people I met loved to contrast this with how Indians carry on stoically even though terrorism is an unfortunate reality in their country.

    My impression is Americans (bloggers, MSM and regular people) hyperventilate at all domestic news but we take our cues from the locals when it comes to international news. When the locals react by just carrying on as before, we tend to react similarly. Rich countries, like the ones in Europe, have a well-equipped news infrastructure, with big government agencies and a culture that also likes to obsess over news (not to the level of the US though).

    My sympathies go out to the people of India.

30. Okay, it’s like, how many people blog about Mumbai’s sister city, Pune besides myself ? I’m glad that you raised the question. Frankly, I’ve learned to blog on in myopic silence.

    http://virtualpoona.blogspot.com/2006/07/mumbai-mourns.html

31. I have to study up on my Indian political gossip before I go, because I know that I will get a ton of folks asking me about US politicians and domestic policy. If you hold us up to your own standards of curiosity and empathy, you will surely be dissappointed.

    Highmay and a few others, just so you know all the bloggers at this website are American Citizens with one Canadian. ~66% of our readers are American as well.

32. I haven’t read the comments thread so I apologize in advance if I’m repeating something someone else said:

    imo, the u.s. portion of the blogosphere that’s concerned with politics is highly focused on partisan electoral politics. It also probably reflects the ordinary myopia of many Americans to events in the rest of the world–particularly those parts of the world that they probably can’t see themselves in. Also, blog coverage tends to be driven by news media coverage.

    btw, I think you give CNN far too much credit. I watched a limited amount of coverage yesterday (on Wolf Blitzer) and it was fairly bad (worst case was side by side images of a train being evacuated in Chicago b/c of who knows what yesterday afternoon and the aftermath of the bombing in Mumbai).

    -s

33. btw, I think you give CNN far too much credit. I watched a limited amount of coverage yesterday (on Wolf Blitzer) and it was fairly bad (worst case was side by side images of a train being evacuated in Chicago b/c of who knows what yesterday afternoon and the aftermath of the bombing in Mumbai).

    Uggghhh. That is unfortunate. They used similar sensationalistic imagery after those weird cult members were arrested in Florida a few weeks ago.

34. http://www.indianpad.com/view.php?id=7212 . In memorium

35. Re #56 Frankly Frank. Christendom !!! Please attend a Sunday Mass in Bombay AND London, then talk?

36. I posted it. And noted that it was another 11th of the month. And wondered where was the outcry. Thanks for mentioning it.

37. I’m with Nell (#75). I’d hate to accuse the blogosphere of responsible journalism, but anything is speculation at this point, since no one has stepped forward and claimed responsibility, and the Indian government is still investigating:

    Both Union Home Secretary, V K Duggal, and Maharashtra Police chief, P S Pasricha, said “some leads” had been found in the probe into the seven blasts in thetrains. They did not give details. “We have leads about the Mumbai blasts but no arrests have been made,” Duggal told reporters in Delhi. “We are confident of getting to the culprits very soon.” In Mumbai, Pasricha said, “Taking into account the modus operandi of the blasts, it is possible that the Lashker-e- Taiba could be involved in the terrorist act.” However, he said it would be “too premature” to say with certainty that the LeT was involved. “We are getting our own leads, while the Intelligence Bureau is giving us some information (The Hindu, 0345 IST update).”

    Yes, the US has a strategic interest in India, but why should anyone believe that these blasts will mark a significant change in the stability of the area? In the past few years there have been numerous attacks (Indian Parliament, Akshadram temple, Diwali in Delhi last November, just to name a few) after which people have hurt, healed, and gotten back to life. Why should anyone assume that these Mumbai blasts would somehow change that? In fact, such attacks are designed exactly to destabilize what little political harmony exists, so why should we desire the blogosphere to explode in what might become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I really don’t think there’s much to say beyond expressing shock and dismay until we have some sort of confirmation of who exactly carried out these attacks, and where they came from.

    Vikram (#20):

    But isn’t SM to an extent guilty of this parochial attitude ? Do we discuss massacres in Africa where hundreds of thousands have been killed ? Places like Rwanda or Darfur don’t cross most of our minds any more than it appears in the MSM in the West or the popular blogs. News stories deemed “irrelevant” to the Desi context are deleted from the news tab. But we have 500+ posts on the Kaavya story in a single thread. Is that any different from my local newscast that spends 10 minutes inanely talking about a cat being rescued from a tree.

    I usually try and stay away from discussions about what is and what isn’t covered on SM, but since this post is a critique of coverage within the blogosphere, I don’t think it hurts to be a little self-reflective.

    Why go as far as Africa? Since April 12, something like 40,000 people have fled their homes in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE has agreed to peace talks and then canceled at the last minute, all the while carrying out attacks against the government and civilians, while scores of Sri Lankan Tamils have died in retaliatory attacks by the Government of Sri Lanka. Boat loads full of people are going from the Mannar penninsula across to Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu, where several new refugee camps have been erected.

    To me, the sparse coverage of this story in the MSM is far more tragic than the lack of speculatory coverage of the Mumbai bombings.

38. At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?

    No.

39. I think the answer to your question is that American bloggers just don’t know enough about the situation in India/Pakistan to have an informed opinion. Take, for example, “The Pakistani government supports Muslim separatists in Kashmir”. I see statements to this effect scattered through the news coverage I read, but I don’t have any way of verifying it. I don’t know the reliability of the sources, the evidence upon which such a pronouncement is made, or enough about the history of the relationship to form any kind of solid idea of what is truly meant. It may be the case that Musharraf is arming, training, advising, and inciting the militants, but I have no real knowledge about it. I don’t know how popular the separatists’ cause and actions are in Pakistan. I don’t know to what degree Musharraf’s political support depends on his backing them. All I know is that the tensions between India and Pakistan have of late revolved largely around Kashmir. And, for all I know, it could be serving as a proxy for resentments dating back to 1947, the Raj, or before.

    So, beyond “That’s terrible”, what am I to say about the Mumbai bomings?

    I recently made an attempt to up my knowledge of affairs in South Asia by reading local, English-language newspapers and websites. For my trouble, I was thoroughly barraged with a plethora of people and acronyms of which I could make very little sense, that came from publications whose leanings I didn’t know and from journalists whose reputations were a blank to me. I kept it up for a few weeks before giving up, no better informed than when I started.

    Even with regard to Iraq, about which I’ve read literally thousands of stories from all manner of sources, there is very little I can say with any confidence, and almost all of that relates directly to US involvement there. I know we blew the hell out of Fallujia, that there are rival claims to Kirkuk, and that Sadr is the son of an eminent Shi’a imam. Oh, and that we had no business invading the country.

    If you look at what is written in the American blogosphere about Iraq, you’ll find that nearly all of it pertains to our having invaded, and the geopolitical implications that could arise therefrom. I daresay most of the latter is ill-founded (excepting, of course what Juan Cole has to say).

    The upshot, from a long-lapsed blogger: Please don’t construe the fact we haven’t written much about the Mumbai bombings as disregard or disrespect. We just don’t have anything intelligent to say about the subject, other than to repeat what we’ve read, heard, and seen from mainstream news outlets.

40. Yes, the US has a strategic interest in India, but why should anyone believe that these blasts will mark a significant change in the stability of the area? In the past few years there have been numerous attacks (Indian Parliament, Akshadram temple, Diwali in Delhi last November, just to name a few) after which people have hurt, healed, and gotten back to life. Why should anyone assume that these Mumbai blasts would somehow change that?

    Vivek, I adress this very point in the post:

    Although largely ignored by the U.S. media, bombings during the festival for the Hindu holiday of Diwali in New Delhi last November, in which Pakistani-based groups were implicated, almost precipitated another major crisis, which was averted only by the Indian leadershipÂ’s restraint. But it is far from clear whether such forbearance could survive another attack. Furthermore, in contrast to the 2001-2 crisis, when the Indian military lacked viable plans for responding to a Pakistani-based terrorist attack, the Indian army is now well prepared to undertake swift and decisive action by retaliating against targets in Pakistan at times and places of its own choosing.

    That quote was written before the bombings, by none other than Sumit Ganguly.

41. Ennis,

    An interesting question.

    But it probably would have been more useful for YOU to expand on your points #1,#2,#3, rather than simply lamenting your perceived slight and hoping others would do the work for you. Then you would actually add to the body of knowledge that exists in the world. If your analysis was well-reasoned, well-documented, and well-written, I GUARANTEE that you would have the attention of the bloggers that you seek.

    But then again, I’m American.

42. At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis

    No and it did surprise me a little. There are a couple of guys who are quite up-to-date on what’s happening around the world. None of them mentioned it and I did not feel like bringing it up.

43. I was also surprised by the sparse coverage of the Mumbai bombings, though I understand the absence of 1) a party claiming responsibility, 2) an imminent reaction by the Indian government toward Pakistan and 3) a large permanent Western media presence in Mumbai gives both journalists and bloggers a smaller “hook” than a similar event would if it happened in Europe or America. The close synchronization of the subway bombs, each using powerful explosives, suggests extensive planning over a long period of time as well as organizational discipline. These are characteristics of al Qaeda’s past terrorist acts more than they are of Kashmiri Islamists or domestic Indian terrorism, which ought to make this story of interest to the United States and our media.

    On the other hand it isn’t always clear what drives coverage, or non-coverage, of a particular story in the media, let alone the blogosphere. For example, we see journalists and bloggers debate from time to time whether Western troops should intervene to stop the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur by the Arab government of Sudan — an idea at the very outside of the realm of the possible, considering, well, a multitude of things. One would think at least as much attention might be given to the unwavering support given the regime in Khartoum by every single Arab government, and the silence in Arab media about a war against civilians that has killed more Muslims in this year so far than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has in the last 20. One would be wrong. No pictures plus no press releases equals no story, I guess — but the truth of the matter is that I just don’t know for sure why what ought to be a story in the media and blogosphere, isn’t. In the case of the Mumbai bombings and American media at any rate, this may change as we learn more.

44. But then again, I’m American.

    Newsflash: So are WE.

45. Juan Cole had a good post on the Mumbai blasts. I was surprised, and frankly a bit hurt, and more than hurt (a really silly emotion, in the circumstances), mystified, at the lack of interest on liberal blogs, especially at the ones that aspire to be taken seriously on national security and the WOT. Nothing on radio-enabled detonators, Nothing on RDX, nothing on trains, nothing on mass transit, nothing on how to deal with universal problem of dealing with sectarianism in different cultural contexts, nothing on a proportional response, nothing on the frustration at not being able to respond overwhelmingly with force, despite wanting to, nothing on the dilemna of of a progressive democracy, fighting odious enemies, holding on to land aquired in dubious circumstances. Nothing.

    Among other things, the fact that India faces a similar situation to the US wrt terrorism is somewhat of a problem for conservatives and Likudniks, as they have to explain in an intellectually consistent way why a policy of getting tough and using overwhelming force is good for the US and Israel, but not good for India.

    Speaking for myself, I have no problem developing strong opinions about Palestinian-Israeli and other non Indian/American issues. BTW, I’m not claiming that “developing strong opinions” is some great personality trait, just responding to the “had nothing to say, so said nothing” dismissals.

    It could be I’m making too much of this, and it (i.e. lack of liberal blogosphere attention) is not a big deal in and of itself , except as it signifies a lack of liberal interest in the WOT, an unwillingness to do the boring work of addressing important issues that don’t have an ideological component, a strain of complacent, self-satisfied parochialism among liberals, and other bad things. Everyone is parochial and tribal, of course, but you try to make strides in the right direction, and be humble and open to new things. Instapundit, for all his faults, certainly is.

46. People are being too nice to the blogger “Deafening Silence…” is 100% demagogy. Perhaps the impulse is not right-wing crap, but a result of buying lock-stock-and-barrel the bourgeois myth that all terrorism is the same. In any case, mass terror – indiscriminately against civilians – is politically criminal and is to be condemned. The question is, whose terror was it? I don’t see any information from you about that.

47. On a sort of related note – for those SM readers outside India, what has been the response from your colleagues? At least in the average software outfit did any of you get past the Howdy, Wazzup with the non-desis?

    I work in a web consultancy with no other South Asians, and not one person (including my manager, a classic Berkeley liberal who is tight with the Daily Kos guy and well-informed enough to write books on political blogging) said anything. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was out of respect for my personal space. One coworker kind of glanced at me for about 5 seconds while I was frantically calling people to find out if anyone had reached my in-laws in Khar, but that was it. If this is what happens in San Francisco, I wonder what happens in places without sizeable desi populations?

48. American bloggers are much more likely to have spent time in London or Madrid, and taken the trains there. So its easier to make a connection an think of substantive things to say. The lack of condolences postings was a bit annoying. I don’t think, however that its simple myopia, so much as an indication of the cumulative effects of generations of myopia. A lot of the posts that do exist are simple cheap, opportunistic shots to rehash a tired point by riding on the coattails of the victims, without remotely waiting to examine the facts at hand. Some people are unwilling to talk on a subject they know they don’t know much about. Hopefully this will wake them up to the fact that they need to learn more.

49. The question is, whose terror was it? I don’t see any information from you about that.

    So…this American blog calls you out for not doing your homework…and you answer by stating, in your defense, “Well, where are the answers??? You didn’t give me any to copy!”

    Genius.

50. People are being too nice to the blogger “Deafening Silence…” is 100% demagogy. Perhaps the impulse is not right-wing crap, but a result of buying lock-stock-and-barrel the bourgeois myth that all terrorism is the same. In any case, mass terror – indiscriminately against civilians – is politically criminal and is to be condemned. The question is, whose terror was it? I don’t see any information from you about that.

    I’m sorry – are you talking about me? Would you care to explain why you think that I’m a demagogue?