InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by uggboy, Sep 1, 2015.
| Print Topic
Moscow voted the world's unfriendliest city
FWIW, I don't find this list especially accurate or useful. Should tourists now refuse to visit Moscow, St. Petersburg, LA, NYC, Las Vegas? Should we assume that Baghdad, Damascus and Mogadishu are all safer cities?
I believe this list wasn't about safety, it's more about interactions between tourists, locals and how the tourists rated such interactions, be it at hotels, at airports, local taxi drivers or asking for directions and the overall level of how tourists felt in each of these cities they've visited. It's by no means "a definitive" list, but it's an interesting marker on how people see the cities in question through the lens of "friendliness" received.
All very subjective, and quite susceptible to bogus reporting.
I suspect that if one doesn't speak Russian, Moscow or St. Petersburg can become very "unfriendly". Likewise for non-English speakers visiting the UK (except for Trafalgar Square! ), the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc
New York city or Las Vegas may be "unfriendly", but that hasn't stopped nearly everyone in the world from wanting to visit them!
The article shouldn't be seen in a way that they wanted to discourage people to visit, it's simply a recollection by people who have visited certain cities and were asked to voice their opinions on friendliness encountered in any given cities they've visited. It's subjective, but I wouldn't call it bogus, especially when people do travel and voice their opinions in a honest and open way through such surveys. Truth be told, we know that people can be helpful or unhelpful, it's all in the balance and yes, such surveys shouldn't stop people to visit cities around the world incl. the cities which were mentioned in the survey by people who've visited the cities in question. It's all about experiences and perceptions, on our travels so far we have met lots of different people and characters, many of them super friendly and helpful, but sadly we've been robbed too in one city and met a few people on our travels we wouldn't want to meet again, but does this mean we've abandoned the cities in question? Not really, we even have visited again the city we got robbed, but were more careful and didn't get robbed again there, so as I mentioned above it's all about subjective feelings and experiences. Cheers, safe travels ahead and hopefully lots of friendly encounters too.
Apologies, but this list really is sensationalistic "journalism" from the tabloids!
Not sure about "tabloids"....Mastercard was the lead sponsor,Travel+Leisure magazine? The Independent newspaper? ...surely these aren't tabloids.
The Independent is not The Times of London or the Wall Street Journal! A bit closer in nature to the Daily Star!
The Times of London and the Wall Street Journal are well respected, both are owned by Rupert Murdoch who had to close down The "News of the World" in the UK, this was a tabloid which couldn't even anymore printed after lots of scandals at that paper, and yes, Rupert Murdoch owns also "The Sun" tabloid in the UK, which oddly is the most read "paper" in the UK. While the first both are "good" and "conservative" in their views, that's why these papers are loved by the establishment on both sides of the pond, we shouldn't forget that Mr. Murdoch has "agendas" too and so do his readers which are "Tories" or "Republican" or sometimes both, depends on "his" mood, "a la minute", that's Mr. Murdoch for all of us, someone who fragments readerships on a whim. On the other side the Independent or the Guardian in the UK are more liberal and more "even handed" plus they've shown more respect towards real news instead of reporting nearly always about their "ilk" and how good they are, all the while "talking over" and "finding no real solutions" to real world problems out there. It's important to read, but it's also important to understand certain political / owner agendas of the papers and I wouldn't stand above people to read what ever I feel like at any given moment, just ask Mr. Murdoch, he's someone who might knows best.
O.K., I'll also suggest that the online adverts on "The Independent" website do speak volumes about how/who they are targeting. It's an entirely different demographic than the TOL, or WSJ, my friend! And the Washington Post and The New York Times are known liberal newspapers on this end of "the pond", but their online adverts are also very different in nature.