Kathy at The Conservative Woman has penned a fine piece describing her experience of listening to the BBC's coverage of the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka: Terror attack on Christians – BBC looks the other way. "Why such flaky and incomplete reporting of this devastating attack aimed at Christian places of worship and designed to kill Christians? What exactly does the BBC have to be so coy about?"
A thoughful reply to her on Twitter made the case for the BBC's defence, "The BBC has extensively reported the events. It has not ignored Christians. But they have not attributed responsibility to Muslims, not least because there is as yet no proof. Perhaps in such a charged atmosphere that might be responsible?
But is there "as yet no proof"? And does 'acting responsibly' by censoring parts of a story actually risk doing more harm than good?
Thread in the comments below....
Thread in the comments below....
