– or so it seems. On 25AUG04 (the week before the last bank holiday), News Online published a story with the needlessly emotive headline Refugee ‘robbed’ of Oxford place.
The story is about a Kosovan refugee, Vildane Berani. She came to the UK five or six years ago with her parents, went to school here and managed to gain an impressive six grade A results at A level. Not surprisingly, she was offered a much sought after place to study medicine at Oxford.
And where, then, is the ‘robbery’ therein? Oh yes, it’s that UK/EU citizens fees for Oxford are “around £1,125 a year”, whereas for non-UK/EU citizens the fees are “up to £30,000 for the first three years alone” and “The final three clinical years of her course could cost even more” and that “Ms Berani told the BBC there was “no way” her family could afford this”. Note the misleading comparison of one year’s UK/EU fees with three years of international fees.
This was the first and last story about Ms. Berani on BBC News Online, at least from my observation, and according to Google and News Online’s own search engine too.
And the good news, not covered by News Online? That was in The Times a few days later on 01SEP04, in a story entitled Girl forced out of Kosovo at gunpoint wins Oxford place*.
The Times reports that “her application to the Home Office for indefinite leave to remain in Britain had been granted” and that this “means that she effectively becomes a home student, with fees of £1,125”.
The Times also informs us that “Living on benefits, her family could not afford the fees” and that “her siblings applied to study at British universities but were told that they would have to repeat several years of study, so they returned to Kosovo”.
Thankfully, with such an expensive and privileged education in prospect, Ms. Berani is apparently “determined to give back something to the country which has effectively given her her freedom”. I’m pleased to hear it, I wish her well in her studies and, if her studies go well, success in serving the cause of medicine in the UK.
I wonder, though, 1) why News Online used such an emotive headline – clearly there was no ‘robbery’ involved – bureaucratic footdragging isn’t unusual when it comes to asylum applications; 2) why News Online missed out various details underscoring how well the UK has looked after Ms. Berani’s family since their arrival here; and 3) why News Online failed to report the happy resolution of Ms. Berani’s predicament.
Could it be that News Online’s version of the story reflects their world view, and that the full background and ultimately happy ending of the story doesn’t? Or are News Online just not very good at following and reporting the news?
* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.
I’ll pick the first choice “…News Online’s version of the story reflects their world view, and that the full background and ultimately happy ending of the story doesn’t”
Oh do keep up. This follow-up to the story was covered on the Today programme at 7:41am on September 2nd in a live interview with the young lady concerned, after they did the original interview a week earlier.
Oh, a whole day after The Times did it properly then. Do you think R4 picked it up from there then? Surely if they were on the ball they’d have been able to cover it on the same day as The Times.
Your point is bogus anyway. My article is about News Online’s coverage of the story – not what may or may not have been covered on R4.
Do pay attention!
P.S. You seem to have a very intimate recollection of the precise time of a live interview on R4 over a fortnight ago – presumably that information is available to you as part of your job at the BBC, rather than as part of some memory feat (the more so since you’ve demonstrated elsewhere that your memory of events is less than photographic).
What is your obsession about me working for the BBC? It’s an assumption and it’s wrong.
The information about the timing of the interview, and the interview itself is freely available to the public on the Today website. Ten seconds with a search engine turned it up, I just relayed the data.
As for the timing with regard to the Times – your point is likewise bogus, my post was about why you’re in a glass-house versus stone-throwing situation, not who said what when.
As for my memory, you really should move on, you’ll make yourself ill otherwise.
The article is about News Online’s coverage of the story – nothing to do with Radio 4 or any of the other heads of the BBC Hydra.
Your diversionary smokescreen is off-topic.
Oh, so some poor sod at News Online forgets to post a follow-up story that is covered elsewhere, and suddenly it’s crime of the century.
Another day, another molehill, another SC-B-BBC mountain.
Mustn’t feed the troll.
Must not point out that name calling is immature.