What the people think

[h/t Sue]

The BBC's announcement of the clearing of Kyle Rittenhouse, along with Nomia Iqbal's report, has been posted on YouTube. 

It's garnered an avalanche of hostile comments about the BBC’s bias. 

So we're far from alone.

Its headline is US teenager who shot dead protesters against racial injustice found not guilty of murder - BBC News. 

Here's a selection of the replies:

• This is the worst framing of a case I’ve ever seen.
• He didn't shoot anyone during any protest. He shot rioters who were attacking him during the riot taking place after the protest, after curfew.
• Title should simply be: "Court rules Rittenhouse not guilty", or something of that sort.
• Rioters. He shot rioters. For attacking him.
• “Teenager accused of murder while defending himself against child molester and criminals rioting, found not guilty.” I like that headline better.
• Wow, no mention of the 2nd rioter hitting him with a skateboard or the 3rd rioter pulling a gun on him. Great reporting!
• "A third man survived" - a man who confirmed in court that Kyle only fired after he had ran towards Kyle brandishing a handgun pointed in his direction. Way to leave out a pretty damn important detail BBC.
• It's not the verdict that sends a fear and disbelief amongst people, it's how you guys represent the fact.
• "Shouting by the judge"….You mean protecting the accused’s right to remain silent when under caution, because the prosecutor used this as a suggestion of guilt. Classy reporting as always BBC.
• BBC is embarrassing. People here know about this case. They should change the title.
• They didn't say anything about one of them hitting him repeatedly with skateboard. Nothing about one of them pointing at him with a gun. They didn't say anything about one of them grabbing his gun. People outside: unattractive loud supporter, calm protester. Maybe BBC news should stick to news not giving a narrative?
• They weren't protesting, they were rioting. Big difference.
• And I thought the BBC couldn't possibly lose anymore credibility.
• This is exactly why I refuse to pay for a tv licence. I don’t like paying for a service just to be told one side of a story.
• BBC has still not given a fair analysis of the issues of the case. Even CNN did better (belatedly) explaining the video, and other evidence, that led to Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal.
• I have followed this case very closely. I am anti-gun but this young man acted in self defence under the circumstances he found himself in. This BBC coverage is ill-informed and heavily biased.
• A reporter and journalist has to be impartial. Every person who spoke in this video has failed at his/her job. Unbelievable.
• BBC shows you how to stick with the MSM narrative despite the facts and jury acquittal. That's what I call dedication!
• When you omit pertinent facts that counter your narrative it doesn't make people angry against the person/groups you're attempting to make us hate, it makes us angry at you for misleading us. A propagandist attempts to convince, a journalist should attempt to inform.
• Terrible framing of what went on from all angles. Well done BBC. Carry on.
• So now the BBC don't accept the verdicts of a jury anymore? At least they are consistent at being 'impartial'.
• This is why so many people are cancelling their licence fee.

There are plenty more.

Update: As CAB says in the comments below: 

Reading the comments under the video is interesting in that every single one is not only based on fact, but is condemning of the BBC. 

The BBC would definitely describe this as a right wing troll pile on, but the lack of any comments defending their reporting is the notable element. 

Where are your supporters, BBC ?