I really, really hope this doesn't make the front pages, otherwise we're in for a whole new wave of panic buying that'll exacerbate the issue for everyone. The underlying point is a relatively...
I really, really hope this doesn't make the front pages, otherwise we're in for a whole new wave of panic buying that'll exacerbate the issue for everyone. The underlying point is a relatively technical question of export restrictions and global trade; the ten-word message will easily morph into "We're running out of food and your family will starve", maybe even with a dash of nationalism added which will also exacerbate things. Even the relatively sober and factual Guardian headline is somewhat anxiety inducing.
It's pretty irresponsible to report it at all tbh - any actual problems would be met by military fronting and a quick reversal, no way in hell the world powers let the breadbaskets do their own...
It's pretty irresponsible to report it at all tbh - any actual problems would be met by military fronting and a quick reversal, no way in hell the world powers let the breadbaskets do their own thing, nothing would unite them faster.
Irresponsible of the Guardian, or irresponsible of the UN economist who spoke to them? I feel as though both are in a fairly tough position: they have a moral obligation to disseminate information...
Irresponsible of the Guardian, or irresponsible of the UN economist who spoke to them? I feel as though both are in a fairly tough position: they have a moral obligation to disseminate information to the public, but to do so in a way that doesn't cause undue panic, all while a large chunk of the media is profiting directly from intentionally spreading panic.
Looking at the quotes I think the problem is shared. The Chief Economist is clearly not a PR expert, and the reporter hasn't tempered what they're taking from what has been said. I can see the...
Looking at the quotes I think the problem is shared. The Chief Economist is clearly not a PR expert, and the reporter hasn't tempered what they're taking from what has been said. I can see the reasoning behind the Chief Economist saying things (they're correct economically, if limited politically), and I can see the drive behind stories with oomph on the part of the reporter, but these are not normal times and there should be more to what goes on than just individual motivation.
I really, really hope this doesn't make the front pages, otherwise we're in for a whole new wave of panic buying that'll exacerbate the issue for everyone. The underlying point is a relatively technical question of export restrictions and global trade; the ten-word message will easily morph into "We're running out of food and your family will starve", maybe even with a dash of nationalism added which will also exacerbate things. Even the relatively sober and factual Guardian headline is somewhat anxiety inducing.
It's pretty irresponsible to report it at all tbh - any actual problems would be met by military fronting and a quick reversal, no way in hell the world powers let the breadbaskets do their own thing, nothing would unite them faster.
Irresponsible of the Guardian, or irresponsible of the UN economist who spoke to them? I feel as though both are in a fairly tough position: they have a moral obligation to disseminate information to the public, but to do so in a way that doesn't cause undue panic, all while a large chunk of the media is profiting directly from intentionally spreading panic.
Looking at the quotes I think the problem is shared. The Chief Economist is clearly not a PR expert, and the reporter hasn't tempered what they're taking from what has been said. I can see the reasoning behind the Chief Economist saying things (they're correct economically, if limited politically), and I can see the drive behind stories with oomph on the part of the reporter, but these are not normal times and there should be more to what goes on than just individual motivation.
Not if New Zealand and like-minded countries have anything to say about it.