The strange story of Princess Michael of Kent falling victim to a Twitter mob for wearing a "racist" Blackamoor broach to the Queen's Christmas lunch (and, naturally, she's now apologised) has been reported by the BBC.
I read Not a Sheep's description of the BBC News website's report as a "BBC SJW article", and you can see why he calls it that if you compare it to the equivalent report from Sky.
Sky's account is noticeably more balanced and nuanced than the BBC's.
For example, the BBC simply cites two critical tweets from the Outraged Brigade ("RACIST", "crass") whereas Sky, after also citing two such criticisms, goes on to report that "Some defended her saying the pieces are not racist".
If you just read the BBC's account you wouldn't know that the accusation of racism is a heavily disputed one. You'd get the outrage but not the counter-view.
Moreover, while the BBC merely says, "Blackamoor figures and sculptures are exotic figures which usually depict African men and were prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries" and tells us that critics have called it "racist", Sky rounds out the picture and says, "Blackamoor sculptures and jewellery usually depict an African or non-European male, as a servant. They have a complex history as they were once considered to be a tribute to the people they represented".
Plus the BBC (unlike Sky) drops in the fact that Princess Michael's father was a major in the Nazi SS.
Sky has reported this story more fairly than the BBC.