Covering What We Should Know, Not What We Want to Hear

One of my favorite things about The Economist is his (I reference the magazine like this, because this is how all of its letters begin) comprehensive coverage of important issues that are often under reported, misreported or just not reported by the American press. The genocide in Darfur is a perfect example. The Economist has been talking about the horrendous situation in Darfur years before it was ever mentioned in the American media.

http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5580439

This story on the web and in the print edition of The Economist (meaning it can be found on Lexis and WestLaw) is a great example. It continues to hammer home the importance of the Darfur situation, while expressing fresh consequences if the international community continues to ignore the genocide and general civil war in the country.

Stability has never been Africa's strong suit, but if the war and genocide in Sudan spill over into Chad, there will be serious consequences. A country as poor as Chad is not in a position to start a war with another African country. However, the question to be asked here is can the international community handle devoting more resources to another conflict and should this become more of a diplomatic and peacekeeping issue before it turns into a multinational war? Perhaps that question should have been taken on prior to the death of 400,000 people and the displacement of two million.