People here may have an axe to grind with Cockburn. But I didn't notice that he anyway said that social indicators haven't improved.
Let's cut to the chase: Are there, or are there not suicides occuring for the reasons that Cockburn cites, attributing it to his host's reportage?
Is it so wonderous that per capita incomes can increase, social indicators can improve, yet there are substantial numbers of people whose existence has gotten worse and are hurting? If so, then the world is the most wonderous place of all -- horrendous starvation and poverty amidst plenty.
What really is the beef here? What is the quarrel here with Cockburn that couldn't be, e.g., thrown at Ehrenreich. After all, someone could, on the same grounds, just as easily say Ehrenreich exgerrates -- who denies that per capita income in the US has gone up, that social indicators have improved, etc., etc. But does all that invalidate Ehrenreich's stories?
So, are the suicides occuring, and are they occuring for the reasons stated by Cockburn, citing his host? If, indeed, they are not, or if they are not occuring for those reasons, then Cockburn would indeed be a liar, not just exaggerating. Else, where is the exaggeration or the factual inaccuracies? Nothing about rising per capita incomes or improved social indicators or how many Indians are watching CTV is a refutation of this.
kj