Lifted from the latest Open Thread:
And here's a transcript of that 7pm bulletin which demonstrates the contrast in treatment between the two news stories:
A 19 year old who plotted to bomb an Elton John concert in London last year has been given a life sentence with a minimum term of 16 and a half years. Haroon Syed was caught by undercover officers as he attempted to get hold of weapons and explosives on the internet. A man from Sunderland has been jailed for 15 months after admitting pulling a niqab off a woman's face and racially abusing her. Newcastle Crown Court heard that Peter Scotter, who's 56, called her 'a stupid Muslim'. Fiona Trott was in court. "The assault happened one year ago when the woman, who was 29, was shopping with her husband and nine-year-old son. CCTV footage shows Peter Scotter grabbing her veil, which almost pulled her to the ground. Witnesses heard him shout, 'You're in our country now.' The court heard the assault has made the woman afraid to go out. Scotter's barrister said it was perhaps no coincidence it happened shortly after the Brexit referendum. The judge said it was 'appalling abusive behaviour grounded in religious bigotry'".
And it wasn't that the jailing of Scotter was breaking news at that time. Both Scotter and Syed had been sentenced mid-afternoon.
Yes, I'd missed the way the religious angle was treated differently in the two stories, as well as in their "structural" treatment. Of course, it's always a mystery to me as to why Jihadist attacks aren't treated as "religiously aggravated". For some reason, they never get put in the hate crime bracket.ReplyDelete
You would think that the two sentences 'Life with a minimum term of sixteen and a half years' for one, and 'Jailed for fifteen months' for the other might have given the BBC a clue as to the importance the courts gave to each of these crimes, and report them in detail accordingly. Never let the facts get in the way of bias!ReplyDelete
The BBC, if it was impartial, might also enquire if jailed for 15 months for "almost" pulling someone over is proportionate.Delete
The first incident is, as Polly Toynbee hath spoken, the 'new normal', so the BBC doesn't need to spend much time on it. The second incident is, of course, the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash the BBC has been worrying about for fifteen years or more.ReplyDelete
Back in the old B-BBC days, we were told by BBC staff and other journalists that this is how journalism works.
6pm news today, a heart-wrenching item on a little girl killed in the Manchester bombings, followed by an item on female genital mutilation - in neither case was the word 'muslim' used.ReplyDelete
As clear a case of Islamophobia as I've ever heard...being so afraid to use the M word.Delete
Craig and BBC Beauties - thanks it's nice to know it wasn't just me silently fuming at the car radio on the way home....ReplyDelete
The first story has now become like dog bites man, whereas the second is like man bites dog.ReplyDelete
Also, 15 months for ripping offensive clothing off somebody and being generally rude and horrible ... really?