Following on from the previous post...
Here's how the Sky News website begins its report on the latest Islamist atrocity news:
Dozens of passengers were forced at gunpoint to profess their faith and were separated into groups, according to local policemen.Al Shabab militants have hijacked a bus in Kenya, with gunmen singling out 28 non-Muslims and shooting them dead, according to police.
Here, in contrast, is how the BBC New website begins its report on the same story:
Suspected members of the Somali militant group al-Shabab have killed at least 28 people in an attack on a bus in northern Kenya, officials say.The bus was travelling to the capital, Nairobi, when it was stopped in Mandera county, near the Somali border.
The Sky News report spotlights the religious (Islamic) character of the terrorist acts whereas the BBC News report leaves that out of its headline and opening paragraphs.
Here's how other sites report the story:
The Guardian: Dozens killed in Kenya bus attack, say police. Officials say al-Shabaab militants from Somalia hijacked bus in north of country and killed 28 non-Muslims on board
The Times: Non-Muslims massacred in Kenya bus hijack. Al-Shabaab militants have hijacked a bus in Kenya and killed 28 non-Muslims on board, singling them out from other passengers.
The Daily Telegraph: Al Shabaab thought to be behind massacre of passengers on bus in northern Kenya. At least 28 feared dead in attack near Somali borderAl-Shabaab militants from Somalia hijacked a bus in Kenya's north and killed 28 non-Muslims on board after they had been singled out from the rest of the passengers, police officials said Saturday.
The Independent: Kenya bus attack: 28 non-Muslims killed after being unable to recite Koran in suspected al-Shabab attack. Suspected al-Shabab militia have killed 28 people on a bus in Northern Kenya, officials say.
The BBC is clearly the only one downplaying the religious element in the Islamist attack in Kenya by refusing to report that information right at the start of its main online report.
This is an example of what David at Five Minutes for Israel outlined the other day:
In the BBC article, it's only in the fourth paragraph, if you were to read the whole story, that readers are told of the horrific religious aspect of the massacre.
Why did the BBC do that there? Why did it downplay the 'attack on non-Muslims' element? Is it not another example of Frank Gardner's "very, very careful" BBC reporting of matters relating to Muslims, not wishing to confirm that these Islamist terrorists had an Islamic 'reason' for what they did?
This is an example of what David at Five Minutes for Israel outlined the other day:
One of the first things a Media student learns is how way a news article is structured. In the so-called inverted triangle structure the main points of the story , the five W’s – who, what, when, why and how should be right at the top while less essential elements can be relegated further down – and cut without losing the story’s essential meaning.
As readers, even if we don’t have the benefit of university training, we learn to recognise the structure. The closer information is to the top of the page the more important it is.
In the BBC article, it's only in the fourth paragraph, if you were to read the whole story, that readers are told of the horrific religious aspect of the massacre.
Why did the BBC do that there? Why did it downplay the 'attack on non-Muslims' element? Is it not another example of Frank Gardner's "very, very careful" BBC reporting of matters relating to Muslims, not wishing to confirm that these Islamist terrorists had an Islamic 'reason' for what they did?
