You know how all those reporters, when they talk about Myanmar, always add “formerly known as Burma”?
Why are they doing that?
I’m will to bet that at least 80% of the American public have no idea where Burma might be, and certainly no idea where Myanmar is, so what’s the point?
The Times of London says that
Michael Jackson?s career lay in ruins on Monday night after he admitted in a TV documentary that he coaxed young boys into sleeping in his bed.
I have only one reaction to this:
What career?
Helicopters circling my neighborhood for a while now. This can’t be good.
RT @LOLGOP: BREAKING: Sheriff of Nottingham accuses Robin Hood of class warfare.
I’ll have to think about this during my flight to Siam.
The reporters are playing a game called word association. You are correct that most people have never heard of Myanmar and couldn’t pinpoint it on a map to save their lives. (I also doubt most people could pinpoint Burma on a map.) However Burma is a name they know. They don’t know anything about the country but they’ve heard the name. There are still plenty of people alive that remember or were told the events of WW II. And those that watch the History Channel no doubt know about General Merrill and his troops known as Merrill’s Marauders and his attack in Burma. And I’ve seen many shows on the Burma Road. Reporters are trying to “connect” with the viewer/listener by throwing in something that sounds familiar and the best they can come up with is “formerly known as Burma”