Yesterday I blogged about an eye-opening new World Bank report on malnutrition that warned nutrition remains a huge problem even in countries such as India that have acheived "food security". It also described malnutrition as the biggest killer since the Black Death and said that the international community risked mishandling it as badly as the early days of HIV/Aids.

Strong stuff. Yet the reponse by the British media was interesting: not one daily print publication, so far as I'm aware, followed it up today, not the FT or even that "self-parody of liberal orthodoxy" (in Jeff Jarvis's phrase) the Independent. (Nor did the Guardian, for that matter.)

Instead, it was the US media, often accused of insularity, that covered it in detail. Not just the usual subjects, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but plenty of others as well. Why the big difference? The World Bank made sure the report was well signposted, with press notices and embargoed copies, and Reuters covered it on the day, so no newsroom with a pulse would have missed it. It's thought-provoking that the same story that gets plenty of ink on one side of the Atlantic gets a collective shrug of the shoulders on the other.



Captcha image