Exactly. The article even comes right out and says that, aside from Mumbai, “most of the rest of the country is considered safe.” So by their own admission, most of India is actually a “Considered Safe Place.” So what the hell is it doing on the list?
And does it really make any sense to list “India” in a list of “20 Dangerous Places,” regardless of how dangerous it is? It’s not just a nation; it’s a subcontinent containing 1/6 of the world’s population. This is not all that different from categorizing “the Southern Hemisphere” as one of the World’s 20 Most Dangerous Places.
Meanwhile, other “Dangerous Places” include Iraq and Mexico, Eritrea and Jamaica. Eritrea is a tiny sliver of land in east Africa. Burundi is also on the list, and it’s even smaller. In fact almost half the list is African countries, yet the entire population of Africa is less than the population of India alone. Why not just list “Africa” as a single Dangerous Place? It would make exactly as much sense as “India.”
Oh my god, did you READ the entry on Mexico? There have been three shark attacks on surfers this year! I can certainly see why it’s on the same list as Iraq.
Telegraph travel editor Francesca Kellett was a lazy, lazy woman this week.
Are you buying? According to Ms. Kellett, Ladakh is supposedly fairly safe… compared to the rest of Kashmir, which is dangerous… compared to the rest of India, which is mostly considered safe… despite its presence on her “World’s Most Dangerous Places” list.
The list really isn’t very informative in this regard, is what I’m trying to say.
It means that, ideally, it would help if there were any clear criteria to justify these particular “places” being on the list, given that they appear to have no commonalities in size, population, or relative danger.
She doesn’t even mention whether the shark attacks were all fatal or not. That’s not just a cry for help from an insane British travel editor; that’s pure shoddy journalism.
Cool.
I should probably also apologize and clarify that I wasn’t actively trying to insult you earlier. Rather, I was attempting to craft an illustrative analogy. I guess I failed at that. Sorry.
I find it rather odd, too, that entire countries are listed, as Thailand remains very safe. The trouble in Bangkok threatens to blow up, but the vast majority of the country remains safe. IF you can actually fly here now, with both Bangkok airports shut.
In fairness to the journalist in question, it was probably a piece rushed out to go in the weekend ‘Travel’ supplement, and we’re taking it way out of context here simply by applying standards we expect of the news reportage rather than of the more lightweight parts of a newspaper. (It possibly was even to replace at the last minute a report on a trip to Mumbai…or Thailand…)
