New horrors in South Sudan

It says a lot about our priorities that the simmering but largely peaceful conflict in Israel / Palestine gets so much attention and this far worse conflict with far more deaths gets almost none.  

I seem to recall a lot of hope when Soth Sudan got independence

But now 'fighting has been communal, with rebels targeting members of Kiir's Dinka ethnic group and government soldiers attacking Nuers. More than 4 million people have been displaced, with about 1.8 million of those internally displaced, and about 2.5 million having fled to neighboring countries, especially Uganda and Sudan. '

Whenever you read the Economist you usually find out about 4 or 5 wars which don't even get a mention in the UK press.

The sad fact is that the UK press applies the following ratios of number of people dying when deciding if something gets covered:

1 british person

3 white people

25 middle east / north africa

50 japanese / korean

200 indian sub continent

500 east asia (china / vietnam etc)

2000 african people

I reckon it's more like 20,000 African people and only in the first six months of a conflict.  You basically have to get up into the hundreds of thousands if not millions after that before it makes the UK press.  The great British public gets bored easily of pictures of dying black people. 

It sounds like an actual hell on earth. There is also basically nothing we can (realistically) do.  

To be honest it also depends on whether the war in question affects any British interests or entities.  Given that there's no British business going on in South Sudan nobody is terribly interested although it does get mentioned from time to time when the Sunday Times does a periodic magazine article on a forgotten overseas war.