Thanks for this. Are you aware of H.R. 2278? The U.S. Congress is now seeking to ban certain Arab satellites for hosting what they deem to be "terrorist channels" (how a TV channel can be a terrorist I will never know). Here's some background on my blog: http://jilliancyork.com/2010/01/29/how-the-u-s-censors-arabs/

What's absolutely absurd is how the U.S. has managed to keep Al Jazeera English and France 24 off its airwaves. Those are two of the very best 24-hour news stations, and Americans aren't given access to them. Ridiculous.

There's something paradoxical in this video, in that it suggests that people are very eager to follow international news, but that this demand isn't being met. Why not? Is this a case of market failure (okay, I know just about nothing about economics...)? If so, what brings it about? Is there some kind of collective action problem here (international news is a public good? again, pardon my economic ignorance)?

Well, the video doesn't really answer its own question. While I'm entirely convinced that the shutting down of foreing news bureaus is leading to a significant loss of international coverage, it's also a superficial explanation, since it doesn't really tell anything about why it is so, and the data provided in the video doesn't really provide any conclusive evidence as to how Americans 'see the world'.

There's some issues of corporate media networks here, and could part of the explanation of the lack of coverage be that international media outlets don't try to market their news to the American media, and could the very dominant (in other parts of the world, especially in Western Europe) stereotype of Americans as being both ignorant and uninterested in the rest of the world, have anything to do with shaping media relations? I don't know, but I hope somebody maybe have some particular insight.

You know, I think it is more important to give local news coverage than global news coverage. There's nothing bad about local news outlets dedicating only 12% of their time to global events. I don't mean to sound harsh but people around the world have more to care about in their lives than floodings in Indonesia. Sounds really selfish but what do I do besides caring about a flooding in Indonesia?

I've always been interested in world events but it is more out of fascination and curiosity than something that will affect my life.

I wish that in local news sources less time was dedicated to world events (and even less to celebrity and other idiocies) and more time dedicated to inform citizens how to make their community better.

There are plenty of worldwide news agencies doing the work of global news coverage. Besides, there is so much important things happening in the world right now that we can't keep up with all of it.

I absolutely agree that we should have more focus on foreign affairs. I understand that we don’t need to hear more about what’s going on in Czechoslovakia than in our own city, but the U.S is heavily involved worldwide. In my opinion, that’s kinda what we’re known for. Since that is the case we should know what the heck it is we’re doing in the world. But maybe we are seeing less and less global news because of the assumed availability of it online. The existence of this source makes it easy to cut out global news when money is low.

Well this is kind of a chicken or egg question. You have to wonder is this because Americans care little about anything outside of their own private lives or is it because the news doesn't give us enough information to care? I tend to see us Americans as very selfish and we see the world as the outside of a bubble some people don't want to leave. They are safe in their bubble and the world can shake the foundation of beliefs and morals. What you believe and stand for in your own little bubble probably won't make sense once you know the bigger picture and that is frightening to many people.

Fortunately the Internet helps people be more inclined to learn about the world but it's still not easy. Things are still skewed in the favor of America. Let's face it, America has more journalists, networks, and websites than anywhere else in the world. It's easy for us to be selfish. Sure we can do more news about the world but it's hard to when you're not there. Although there are plenty of journalists who live in other countries and can be reliable for news information. Unfortunately we know that usually comes at a price and why would a major news network want to pay a third party for news information when they could just not cover it at all.

There is plenty of time in the day for both 24 hour and local news sources not to recycle their stories. Particularly when you see the same stories covered by every channel. Whatever happened to covering stories that the other news channels don't cover? This may be the case for one or two stories per channel, but these are often celebrity/gossip stories... I watch the news a lot to get so little out of it.

When it comes to News Networks or any other Network channels I am sure they care more about going up in ratings than covering the flood in Indonesia. Brittney
Spears and Anna Nichole would get more attention then international news and going outside from the bubble would certain mean more money for news network and less ratings. Thanks to the internet

Very interesting video - lots of literature on that as well. I would be interested to hear if you looked at how global news is covered in national and global media.