Other Countries, According To Our News
Boiling foreign countries down to adjectives
Let's face it - there are not many plot twists in the way our journalists write about other countries. Our top media outlets cover international news like a bad season of House of Cards. One where all the characters do exactly what you expect them to, and that lasts for decades.
These clearly intelligent journalists could write about the incredible, smart people in other countries doing unique creative things; they could write about their kindness, humor, and humanity, but they don't.
They stick to the script.
Summarizing the last ten years of New York Times coverage, each country's character arc, with very few exceptions, is:
Central and South America = Crime, crime, crime, all of the time.
Japan = Weird culture (and aging).
South Korea = A new, cooler version of Japan.
China = Authoritarian oppression.
India = Poverty.
Thailand and Malaysia = Political coups.
The EU = An economy perpetually four steps behind the US.
Sweden/Norway = Rich but boring blond socialists.
France = Political protests
Middle East = War (what is it good for?)
Muslim Countries = Female Oppression (except for Saudi Arabia which is making progress!)
Israel = Marvel superheroes fighting an alien invasion.
Ukraine = Marvel superheroes fighting an alien invasion.
Russia = Lord Voldemort's evil horde.
Afghanistan = Better when we owned it.
South Africa = Low-key better when we owned it.
Central Africa, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Pacific Islands = literally don't exist
---
In the English language press, the English-speaking countries get slightly better treatment:
US = the center of everything.
UK = amazing history and culture, which previously was the center of everything.
Canada = Soft spoken people with great humor, sorry.
Ireland = Where charming elven-like beings drink Guinness.
Australia = Stunning wildlife and amazing adventurers !
New Zealand = An amazing place to escape to, after all the places listed above destroy the planet !
---
Author's Note: I don't agree with any of the takes above, and hope we can start speaking of people in other countries in the same way we speak of people in our own.
Please drop your thoughts and summaries of any other countries I missed into the comment section. Unless you're from Tajikistan and then don't bother.
////
Appendix
Here’s a summary of the main international topics covered by The New York Times from 1990 to 2023, highlighting key themes for each year:
1990s
- 1990: Reunification of Germany; Gulf War and U.S. involvement.
- 1991: Collapse of the Soviet Union; rise of independent states in Eastern Europe.
- 1992: Balkan Wars; humanitarian crises in former Yugoslavia.
- 1993: Oslo Accords; peace process between Israel and Palestine.
- 1994: Genocide in Rwanda; NAFTA discussions.
- 1995: Oklahoma City bombing; international terrorism concerns.
- 1996: Expansion of NATO; conflicts in Chechnya.
- 1997: Asian financial crisis; return of Hong Kong to China.
- 1998: Iraq sanctions; U.S. military strikes against Iraq.
- 1999: Kosovo War; NATO intervention in the Balkans.
2000s
- 2000: U.S. presidential election controversy; global economic concerns.
- 2001: September 11 attacks; War on Terror begins.
- 2002: U.S. invasion of Afghanistan; rise of Al-Qaeda.
- 2003: Iraq War; debates over weapons of mass destruction.
- 2004: Tsunami in Southeast Asia; political unrest in Ukraine (Orange Revolution).
- 2005: Hurricane Katrina; global climate change discussions.
- 2006: North Korea's nuclear tests; conflict in Lebanon.
- 2007: Financial crisis begins; tensions in Iran.
- 2008: Global financial crisis; election of Barack Obama.
- 2009: H1N1 pandemic; discussions on healthcare reform.
2010s
- 2010: Arab Spring; protests across the Middle East.
- 2011: Civil war in Syria; death of Osama bin Laden.
- 2012: Rise of populism; ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.
- 2013: Edward Snowden revelations; U.S.-Russia relations.
- 2014: Ukraine crisis; annexation of Crimea by Russia.
- 2015: Syrian refugee crisis; Paris climate agreement.
- 2016: Brexit vote; U.S. presidential election and global implications.
- 2017: North Korea missile tests; rise of authoritarianism.
- 2018: U.S.-China trade war; global climate protests.
- 2019: Hong Kong protests; impeachment inquiry against Trump.
2020s
- 2020: COVID-19 pandemic; global health crisis and economic fallout.
- 2021: U.S. Capitol riot; continued pandemic response and vaccine distribution.
- 2022: Russia's invasion of Ukraine; global energy crisis.
- 2023: Ongoing conflicts in Ukraine; discussions on climate change and sustainability.
About the Creator
Scott Christenson🌴
Born and raised in Milwaukee WI, living in Hong Kong. Hoping to share some of my experiences w short story & non-fiction writing. Have a few shortlisted on Reedsy:
https://blog.reedsy.com/creative-writing-prompts/author/scott-christenson/
Reader insights
Outstanding
Excellent work. Looking forward to reading more!
Top insights
Easy to read and follow
Well-structured & engaging content
Eye opening
Niche topic & fresh perspectives
Masterful proofreading
Zero grammar & spelling mistakes
On-point and relevant
Writing reflected the title & theme
Keep reading
More stories from Scott Christenson🌴 and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Berlin Blackout Sparks Alarm After Left-Wing Group Claims Responsibility for Sabotage
Start wrBerlin is no stranger to political protest, but a recent citywide blackout has pushed Germany into uneasy territory. After tens of thousands of residents were left without power, a left-wing activist group came forward claiming responsibility, framing the incident as an act of political sabotage aimed at forcing attention on climate policy and technological governance. The claim has intensified public concern, not only about the blackout itself, but about the growing willingness of activist groups to target critical infrastructure. What began as a disruption has now become a national debate over the limits of protest, the definition of extremism, and how democracies should respond when political activism crosses into sabotage. The Blackout That Shook the Capital The outage affected multiple districts across Berlin, disrupting homes, businesses, and public transport systems. Traffic lights failed, trains were delayed, and residents reported hours without heating, internet access, or reliable communication. While hospitals and emergency facilities relied on backup generators, authorities acknowledged that the incident placed significant strain on public services. Initial reports described the blackout as a technical failure. That explanation changed dramatically when a left-wing group issued a statement online claiming responsibility, describing the outage as a deliberate act designed to expose what it called the “fragility of systems that sustain an unjust and destructive status quo.” The group framed the sabotage as non-violent, arguing that disruption — not harm — was the goal. The Group’s Message and Motivation In its statement, the group linked the blackout to broader grievances over climate change, artificial intelligence, and what it described as government inaction. According to the group, modern societies continue to rely on fossil fuels, centralized energy grids, and rapidly advancing technologies without sufficient democratic oversight. By targeting infrastructure, the activists said they hoped to demonstrate how vulnerable modern life is — and how urgently political priorities need to shift. This rhetoric reflects a growing strand within radical activism that views disruption of everyday life as a legitimate tool. Supporters argue that traditional protests no longer generate meaningful political change. Critics see a dangerous escalation that risks normalizing tactics once associated with extremist movements. Government and Security Response German authorities reacted swiftly. Interior Ministry officials condemned the sabotage, stressing that interference with critical infrastructure is a serious criminal offense regardless of political motivation. Investigators are now working to verify the group’s claim and determine how the outage was carried out. Security agencies have also launched a broader review of infrastructure protection, particularly energy systems that are increasingly decentralized and digitized. Officials warned that while the blackout did not result in fatalities, similar incidents could have far more serious consequences in the future. Several political leaders called for tougher penalties for those who sabotage essential services, arguing that democratic societies cannot tolerate actions that endanger public safety. Public Reaction: Sympathy Meets Anger Public opinion in Berlin and across Germany has been sharply divided. Some residents expressed sympathy with the underlying causes highlighted by the group, particularly concerns over climate change and unchecked technological power. However, frustration and anger dominated many responses. Small business owners reported financial losses. Families with elderly or medically vulnerable members described fear and anxiety during the outage. Commuters voiced outrage at being used, in their words, as “collateral damage” in a political statement. For many, the group’s justification rang hollow. While climate anxiety is widespread, the idea of sabotaging infrastructure crossed a line. Protest or Extremism? The central question now facing Germany is how to define actions like the Berlin blackout. Is this civil disobedience, or does it constitute political extremism? Legal experts point out that intent matters. Civil disobedience traditionally involves breaking laws openly and accepting consequences to highlight injustice. Sabotage, by contrast, is covert and risks unintended harm. The blackout’s scale and impact complicate claims that the action was harmless. German history adds another layer of sensitivity. The country remains acutely aware of how political extremism — from both the far right and far left — has threatened democratic stability in the past. As a result, there is little tolerance for actions that undermine public trust or safety. Infrastructure as a New Protest Target The Berlin blackout underscores a worrying trend: infrastructure has become a new battleground for political activism. Energy grids, transport networks, and data systems are increasingly seen as pressure points capable of generating maximum attention with minimal effort. Experts warn that this approach carries serious risks. Even well-intentioned activists cannot fully control the consequences of infrastructure disruption. Power outages can affect hospitals, emergency communications, and vulnerable populations in unpredictable ways. There is also concern that such tactics could inspire copycat actions — not only by activists, but by criminal or hostile actors exploiting similar vulnerabilities. Political Fallout and Policy Implications The incident is already shaping political discussions in Germany. Lawmakers are debating whether existing laws adequately address sabotage motivated by ideology. Some have proposed expanding surveillance powers or tightening restrictions on protest activities near critical infrastructure. Civil liberties groups caution against overreaction, warning that broad crackdowns could erode democratic freedoms and push activism further underground. They argue that the solution lies not only in security measures, but in addressing the grievances that fuel radicalization. The challenge for policymakers is finding a balance: protecting infrastructure without criminalizing dissent. A Warning for Europe Berlin’s blackout is being closely watched across Europe. As cities become smarter, greener, and more interconnected, they also become more vulnerable. Energy transitions, while essential for climate goals, introduce new complexities into grid management and security. The incident serves as a reminder that resilience is not just about technology, but governance. Transparent decision-making, public trust, and credible political pathways for change are crucial in preventing radical escalation. Conclusion: A Line Has Been Crossed The claim of responsibility by a left-wing group has transformed the Berlin blackout from a technical incident into a political reckoning. While the urgency of climate change and concerns about technology are widely shared, the method chosen has sparked fear rather than consensus. Democracies depend on protest, but they also depend on trust and safety. When activism turns to sabotage, it risks undermining the very values it claims to defend. Berlin’s blackout is more than a disruption of power — it is a warning about how fragile the line between protest and extremism can become in an age of crisis, urgency, and political frustration.iting...
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (6)
We are lucky in that we speak a couple of languages. So, when anything big happens my husband listens to the German, Spanish and Russian news after the North American news. He's a bit overboard in my opinion BUT, what he says is true: after listening to 4 different biased perspectives he finally has most of the facts of a situation!
Accurate.
This is eye opening, Scott. I was just cruising along to get something else here on Vocal and just the title drew me in. And I didn't know any of this. I appreciate this article!
Good one Scott. I’d change one, the U.S. from “the center of everything” to “the laughing stock of the world.”
Interesting article, Scott <3 My opinion is all the good reporters died out long ago. Back when news was reported with an unbiased view.
Great article Scott. I’m a Brit living in the US - I don’t rely on the American news outlets for info as they are so biased on party lines. It seems to have got worse in recent weeks.