(Apologies for linking to many of my own blog’s postings, but I have been following this story since it first broke).
Last Wednesday saw what I believe was a first for BBC news. A racist murder featured as the main story on the PM Radio Four five o’clock bulletin. The same murder featured in subsequent bulletins and was the top story on the BBC UK News website the same afternoon. Only the Rumsfeld resignation knocked it off top spot on the six o’clock news – and the murder was discussed on Radio Five that night and again the following day.
What’s so unusual about that ? The perpetrators were not white. Previous coverage of such murders have been low-profile to the point of invisibility, in stark contrast to the BBCs coverage of racist murder where the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators, were white.
Six examples, in chronological order, will illustrate. The 1993 murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence (830 BBC news search results) will be well-known to anyone living in the United Kingdom. No one has been convicted of his murder.
The racist murder of Ghanaian Michael Menson in 1997 – 25 results. Initially thought to have been the work of white racists, three people of varied ethnicity were convicted.
The racist murder of teenager Scott Parker (7 BBC news search results) in September 2001 will be less familiar. Unusually, the BBC have accepted, in a piece by TV editor Jon Williams, that ‘in hindsight, it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively’.
The reason the murder slipped under the BBC radar ?
“On the same day that Shied Nazi, Ahmed Ali Aswan and Sarris Ali were jailed for the murder of Ross Parker, another murder dominated the headlines.
The uncle of Danielle Jones – a schoolgirl who disappeared in Essex — was found guilty of killing her. The search for Danielle had been extensively covered. The conviction of Stuart Campbell closed a chapter on a continuing mystery.
Add to that the build up to the war in Iraq and Hans Blix’s verdict on Iraq’s weapons dossier, and you begin to see how a newsworthy story about the murder of a teenager – in appalling circumstances – might be squeezed out by other stories.
The murder of Ross Parker took place ten days after the September 11th attacks – at a time when the BBC had all antennae alert for attacks on Muslims, not by Muslims. On the day he died this is what the BBC were reporting. I’d respectfully suggest that, had a 17 year old Muslim been chased and butchered in Peterborough on September 21, 2001, it would have not only have been reported on BBC news – it would have dominated BBC news – Hans Blix or no Hans Blix.
The third murder is the one the BBC are now covering, that of Kriss Donald, the 15-year old schoolboy, snatched from the street by strangers and held captive overnight before being slaughtered in the most appalling fashion. At the end of the first trial (of one of his killers, at the end of 2004) there were 36 BBC news search results. The verdict was covered in one report on the Today programme and one report on the PM news.
In June 2005 student Anthony Walker (127 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Liverpool. In their own words : The BBC has given a lot of national coverage to the murder of Anthony Walker, the 18-year-old boy killed with an axe in Merseyside last Friday. It made the One, Six and Ten O’Clock News bulletins; there were constant live updates on News 24; and it led the UK index of the BBC News website.
Why did the Anthony Walker murder get such coverage ? BBC News editor Amanda Farnsworth said “It is this racial element to the crime that makes it different …In addition, there was a planning and premeditation in the murder of Anthony Walker that was also particularly shocking. Anthony had walked away from the man racially abusing him but the man appears to have gone to find his friends, and an axe, and chased and killed the 18-year-old.”
And in October 2005 Isiah Young-Sam (16 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Birmingham.
830 reports, 25 reports, 7 reports, 36 reports, 127 reports, 16 reports.
In two racist murders the victim was non-white, the alleged perpetrators white. 957 reports.
In two racist murders the victim was white, the alleged perpetrators non-white. 42 reports.
In two racist murder both victim and alleged perpetrators were non-white. 41 reports – and of the 25 Michael Menson stories, several relate to the claim that his killers were a white gang (Mr Menson was actually killed by a Mauritian, a Turkish Cypriot, and a Greek – a Mr Hussein Abdullah was also convicted of perverting the course of justice).
Do we see a pattern here ?
It can be argued that the Lawrence case was an exceptional one, because of the response which the campaign of the Lawrence family engendered from government, the enquiry which was convened, and the effect of the enquiry upon society in general and government in particular. There is some truth in this. People will have to judge for themselves. It could also be said that some alleged racist murders where the alleged perpetrators were white, such as the killing of 80 year old Akberali Tayabali Mohamedally, receive little coverage. As the BBC did not report the trial, if indeed there was one, it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions either way.
The most telling contrast is between the coverage of the Anthony Walker and Isiah Young-Sam murders. Both were bright young black men from similar churchgoing backgrounds and loving families – yet the coverage ratio (127 stories to 16) is remarkable – especially when you consider the nature of the attack.
All murders – including racist ones – are abhorrent, and difficult to rank in order of ghastliness. The victims are just as dead. Yet the Young-Sam murder was particularly vile in that, like the murder of Kriss Donald, it was targeted rather than opportunistic.
The murderers of Anthony Walker and the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrence were thugs with criminal records and histories of violence against people of all races. They met their victims by chance in the street – the Walker murderers were actually on their way to commit a robbery. Although it is impossible to be sure, it is unlikely that either set of murderers had planned the killings.
In contrast, the murderers of Isiah Young-Sam, like those of Kriss Donald, were cruising the streets looking for someone of the right race to attack. The murder took place at a time of heightened tension and street clashes between Asian and Afro-Caribbean Britons in Birmingham. So why did he get so much less coverage than Anthony Walker, despite ticking all Amanda Farnsworth’s boxes for a ‘racial element’ and premeditation ?
The coverage fits a pattern. It’s exactly what you’d expect to see from people who have been taught and believe that –
a) racism by the majority community against minority communities is widespread and is a major social and cultural problem
b) racist murders by members of the majority community are the most striking expression of this racism
In other words, anyone who’s studied politics or social science in a British university in the last thirty years.
Anthony Walker and Stephen Lawrence are important in this context not so much as individuals but as icons. It’s because their murders resonate with assumption a) that they get big air. The stories fit into an existing, larger narrative.
There’s nothing wrong, of course, with assumptions a) or b). They are legitimate views to hold. The problem comes when you pick and choose news stories on the basis of how well they fit into and illustrate it. You run the risk of being perceived as grossly unfair – racist, even – when almost identical stories get different levels of coverage.
Unstated – and until recently, maybe even unthought, are two other assumptions.
c) racism by minority communities against the majority or any other community is not widespread and is not a problem
d) what racist murders ?
I can quote statistics from the BBC News pages forever, but it’s easier to give examples of c) and d). You’ll find a number of stories on BBC news where a member of a minority community has died and (far-left) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. The deaths of the McGowans in Telford or Ricky Reel come to mind. They’re reported because they fit assumption a). You won’t find any stories where a member of the majority community has died and (far-right) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. Protests about the killing of Gavin Hopley went unreported. The story doesn’t fit the narrative.
And “what murders ?” On 1st December 2005, the day when the Walker killers were sentenced, Jane Garvey of BBC Radio Five’s Drive programme interviewed Peter Fahey, Chief Constable of Cheshire and race spokesperson for ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and asked him :
“Has there ever been a white victim of a racist murder in this country ?”
If the regular presenter of a daily BBC three-hour news and current affairs show is unaware of such murders what does that say about the coverage they get ?
At the time Ms Garvey asked her question BBC researchers must surely have been aware of the 2004 Home Office data (p20) which states : “Over this three-year period, the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.” Anyone whose only news source was the BBC would be amazed to learn from the same Home Office figures (Table 3.6) that for every non-white person killed by a white person in England and Wales, two whites are killed by non-whites.
But it all changed last week. Kriss Donald Trial 2 got the full treatment denied Trial 1. An extended seach returns 82 stories – the majority dating from after the first trial. Why ?
Everyone will have their views on this – mine are not relevant here. I’m just grateful that victims are starting to be treated more equally, no matter what their skin colour. More rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner, and all that.
But the BBC’s Mark Eason does attempt an explanation-cum-justification for this sudden about-turn – which is unintentionally revealing (although yet again poor Isiah Young-Sam is ignored).
Racism was once defined as “prejudice plus power” – a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
Yes, racism was once defined that way – in left-wing sociology and social services departments between, say, the Brixton riots and the 7/7 bombings. And “tended to exclude all but the white population” boils down in practice to “only whites can be racist“. In other words, the attitude underlying the BBCs discriminatory reporting up until last week. Mr Easton’s rather let the cat out of the bag there. Thanks for being so upfront about it.
To everyone else the definition of racism remained what it had always been – judging someone on the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.
PS – Mr Easton’s piece is worthy of a full fisking, but I’ll just take one small poke :
“The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. On the National Front website they feature a long list of “The Fallen”, white people they say were killed by non-whites.”
It is absolutely true that the paucity of coverage of the Kriss Donald murder – arguably by far the worst racist murder ever committed in Britain (at least since the sectarian barbarities of the Shankill Butchers), has been a propaganda gift to parties like the BNP. But it’s a gift that was handed them by the BBC. If the BBC doesn’t report something which is of interest to large numbers of people, other organisations will attempt to fill the void. There are some murders which are only documented at various far-right sites – and it is a disgrace that the BBC don’t report them, leaving such sites as literally the only sources of information. I’ll be interested to see if the BBC cover the Charlene Downes murder trial next year.
Anyway, if having some views that are the same as the BNP is now the same as supporting the BNP, what’s with the BBC’s ranting about Israel, ‘neo-con cabals’ running America, Big Business running amok and the many and varied forms of ecoluncacy on display ? Or to put it another way, apart from racism, what is it the BBC doesn’t like about the BNP ?
Re political allegience
I want to declare something more shocking than being a member of the BNP.
I voted for loony lefty Alice Mahon because I wanted to help provide a parliamentary majority for ……Tony Blair (not that Alice voted with the whip anymore often than did the Opposition). What’s worse I still like Tone, cos at least he talks right on a couple of the major subjects, which is better than is achieved by other party leaders.
There, I’ve said it. Sorry.
“What’s worse I still like Tone, cos at least he talks right on a couple of the major subjects, which is better than is achieved by other party leaders”
Will – talking is one thing – doing something is another.
The key thing to remember about the left’s view on racism is that whether something is racist or not depends on the race of the racist.
Brown-skinned racists cannot be racists, because of their race. Only whites can be racists, because of theirs.
This is why al-BBC will bother to try to infiltrate the BNP but will not attempt to infiltrate any loony Islamofascist groups. Part of it is simple physical cowardice – the BNP Aren’t going to kill you but Islamofascists very well might – but mainly it is because there is “nothing to see here”. Islamofascists hating Britain just isn’t a story. Likewise, the fact that an ethnic minority is around 30 times more likely to carry out a racist crime against a white than vice versa is just not worth bringing up.
Reith and the other BBC shills on here don’t actually believe any of the lies they post. They don’t seriously think the BBC is a neutral organisation, and they know perfectly well that they are corrupt, lie-peddling, Labour-voting lefties.
will | 13.11.06 – 12:14 am
Yes, I knew that that is your allegiance because I print out every post and suspend my Mystic Crystal over them. If the Crystal swings to the left you are bnp, if it goes all the way to the left you are socialist.
I believe that this is the same system as used by reith, except he gets it wrong because he thinks a bnp post makes the Crystal swing to the far right.
That’s why beeboids are always wrong about the bnp.
Haven’t the BNP repudiated their previous anti-Semitism? If so, that makes them less extreme than the BBC (Orla, Cry Baby Plett, Bowen et al.)
I see the composite “John Reith” has been at work in this thread. It must be a very interesting style sheet they use.
The BBC feeding racism, “it’s what we do”.
Wow ! Laban certainly did touch a nerve ! The comrades at Al-BBC certainly seemed to be rattled by the growing influence of Biased BBC (numerous US blogs are now quoting the site).
Their alarm is shown by the desperate attempts of JR and the other al-beeb minion “Mister Minit” to use the “nazi” smear against their critics. Strange that they would consider being a supoorter of fascism as a bad thing – after all isn’t it Al-Beeb who constantly shills for the islamofascists of Hezbollah and Hamas ? Isn’t it Al-BBC that run “entertainment” that claims that Jews are behind islamic terrorist attacks ?
For enablers of real fascism (yes JR and Mister Minit I’m talking about you and your paymasters) to fling around smears is the height of hypocrisy. The new fascists on are on the Jew-hating, islamic-supporting Left – they excuse real fascism “suicide bombers are misguided criminals” and project their twisted worldview onto those who are exposing their lies. Keep pushing, people – the truth is hurting them !!
Will
That took guts, confessing to having voted for comical alice.
jr
‘There are currently about 5 or 6 BNP members/supporters daily active on this blog.’
I doubt that you will be able to substantiate that remark unless, of course you are now following the Billy Bragg line which is that anyone associated with, or sympathetic to the views of UKIP is a fascist.
You will, of course, be familiar with the BBC’s deification of ‘St Billy’ and all of his utterances. I have never once seen this prat challenged when allowed to ramble on the BBC.
JBH
Doubt if I will be able to come back today. Have started to look at your information and will speak soon.
Interesting that like attracts like. Roth and Gott under the same roof ( and with Toynbee).
JBH
Forgot to mention that one of the five prime targets for KGB infiltration in the mid 20th century was the BBC, and that legacy lives on.
five prime targets for KGB infiltration
should read;
five prime targets in the UK for KGB infiltration.
jr
whether people are sympathetic to the BNP does not concern me as much as the current erosion of the freedon of speech in this country.
At the beginning of the year there was a demonstration by muslims where murder was being extolled. During the course of that demonstration the freedom of speech in this country was challenged.
The Labour party, the BBC, and to their shame, the Tories (what strange bedfellows) are now beginning to march in step with the aims of those muslim protesters.
That jr is the greatest danger facing us today, not trumped up charges of the (non existent) spread of fascism in Britain.
(Please don’t bother to come back on this site and try and make an equivalence between incitement to murder and free speech because I won’t respond)
DumbJon is spot on.
“There are currently about 5 or 6 BNP members/supporters daily active on this blog.”
How do you tell if somebody posting here is a BNP member JR?
Good morning, to those of you at the BBC. I hope you’re ready to work. After all we pay your wages. Here’s some light reading on the non-existent bias.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2451922,00.html
Re BBC coverage of this shooting. Listening to Radio 4s news Sunday morning at 8am, I was astonished at the detail we were given:
“The police are looking for a black man”
When I returned in the evening , quickly looking at BBC News 24 I saw a report that had strangely evaded any question of ethnicity. So too in this web site account below. Why do the BBC do this? Is this revealing of ethnicity within the news merely down to the idiosyncrasy of an editor?
How can the BBC at first report and then withhold descriptions of ethnicity like this? I wish it were more like the 8am news, rather than the later bland attempt at obfuscation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6142170.stm
Man held over policeman shooting
Police arrest a 25-year-old man in connection with the shooting of a police officer in Wolverhampton.
JD –
The risk to B-BBC’s reputation is greater now than during the local elections.
You’re losing it.
As for BNP-ers being active on this site, I vote for Sentamu.
to JR:
Simple question (copy): How did you acquire this information John?
Second Question : Does the fact that you question only the Kriss Donald reporting issue mean you are agreeing that the rest of Laban’s points are basically correct (including his interpretation of Mark Easton’s explanation)
You also start a smear campaign by absurdly linking legitimate comment with far right groups and spreading FUD about this excellent blog. That’s pretty shoddy.
It might be shoddy but it’s what the left do. It’s the standard ad hominem attack – “I can’t refute your arguments so instead I’ll accuse you of being a racist”.
Laban | Homepage | 12.11.06 – 7:38 pm
“I’ll say it again. By Nov 14 2004 all the salient facts (then, of course allegations in open court rather than proven facts) were being reported in the Scottish media.”
Yes. And they were ALSO reported by the BBC. Despite an attempted ban, the BBC was able to report the FIRST trial as follows:
3 November 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3978901.stm
5 November 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3986241.stm
9th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3997247.stm
11th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4003223.stm
16th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4003223.stm
17th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4019953.stm
Conviction 18th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4022567.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4023795.stm
Note that these stories include what you regard as particularly salient:
“The evidence that the attackers were racists looking for a white boy to “chop them up and take their eyes out and stab them”.” and the forensic evidence of the brutality of the murder.
……..contd
…..contd?
“The facts – as reported by the BBC at the time – should have been sufficient to make a major story.”
It WAS a major story. Compare the trial coverage of the Kriss Donald case with that of Anthony Walker.
ore or less identical in terms of scale, style, coverage:
Anthony Walker trial opens 15 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4437320.stm
Prosecution case 16 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4442378.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4441218.stm
Cousin evidence 17 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4445928.stm
21 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4457030.stm
22 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4459864.stm
23 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4464798.stm
verdict 30 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4477156.stm
The DIFFERENCE between the Walker case and the first Donald trial was chiefly apparent AFTER the verdict was in. In the Walker case, the media were free to report anything they liked. In the Donald case, reporting restrictions remained in place because a second trial was anticipated.
“Mr Minit – your point about other media and JR’s re the Mail. Dangerous ground. The Mail and co are at liberty to be biased, cherrypick stories etc in whatever way they wish.”
The point of raising other media was to challenge your allegation that the BBC under-reported this case because of its alleged PC worldview. We now see that the very unPC Daily Mail (a paper that focuses on law and order) published only two stories on the Donald case during the period that the BBC published scores of them.
Your post is therefore exposed as being prejudiced and innaccurate – not only in its details but even in its underpinning premises.
Pot, kettle, black Laban.
bbc quick to call a racially motiveted attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/6139190.stm
Extra police officers are patrolling streets near the scene of a racially-motivated arson attack in which a grandfather died.
A little too quick it seems
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/display.var.1017923.0.increased_patrols_following_fire_death.php
Initial reports suggested it was a racially motivated attack, when it was discovered a brick had been thrown through a front window.
But a police spokeswoman confirmed that a member of the public used the brick to help rescue the family.
It is unclear if the police are still treating the attack as racially motivated.
Increased patrols following fire death
Since so many of you appear to find it difficult to find coverage of the Kriss Donald case, here’s a handy copy-and-keep guide to the BBC’s trial coverage.
Anyone who claims the BBC website under-reported this case needs their head examined.
First Trial
3 November 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3978901.stm
5 November 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3986241.stm
9th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3997247.stm
11th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4003223.stm
16th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4003223.stm
17th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4019953.stm
Conviction 18th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4022567.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4023795.stm
…..contd/
The BBC article makes the same point:
“Police said a brick thrown through the house’s front bay window had nothing to do with the arson attack.
It was thrown by a member of the public who was trying to help those trapped inside.”
….contd.
Second Trial:
trial begins: Monday 2 October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 5400138.stm
4th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 5406912.stm
5th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 5409734.stm
6th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 5413510.stm
9th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6033503.stm
10th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6037107.stm
11th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6040392.stm
12th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6044474.stm
13th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6048974.stm
16th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6055446.stm
18th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6062384.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6061434.stm
19th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6067118.stm
…contd
….contd.
20th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6069954.stm
23rd October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6076884.stm
24th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6080850.stm
26th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6087918.stm
30th October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6099380.stm
31st October
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6103574.stm
1st November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6106146.stm
2 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6110284.stm
3 November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6113568.stm
6th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6121784.stm
8th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6123014.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6103408.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…and/ 6119078.stm
9th November
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…/6130882.stm? ls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6133028.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl…est/ 6133028.stm
Laban et al
And now that your allegations about the trial coverage has been so comprehensively rubbished, I anticipate that you will try to move the goalposts and shift your complaint to the period before the trial.
So here’s the key pre-trial coverage:
Discovery of Body
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3517042.stm
Clues sought
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3518434.stm
Community Shock over Killing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3519054.stm
Funeral
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3670805.stm
Arrests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3594193.stm
Remand in Custody
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3602447.stm
Warrant issued
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3653481.stm
Suspect flees abroad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3657447.stm
(this story taken down for legal reasons after court order)
Case closed, I think.
JR:
Looks pretty comprehensive to me.
So what do you think of Arch-Bishop Sentamu’s comments about BBC bias?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2451922,00.html
i think laban probably thinks it worthy of a front page or two.you know lead story for a week or two,not buried in bbc scotland.it was a vile murder,i know if the victim had been black or asian,the beeb and the rest of the msm would have crawled all over it,not payed it lip service.
A tough one for JR and other Beeboids.
A black man criticising anti-Christian bias at the Beeb. What trumps what in the Beeboid brain? And I bet they thought he was one of theirs. The traitor.
K
I think he’s shooting at the wrong target.
The CofE gets a pretty good shout on the BBC.
Thought for the Day. Daily Worship. Prayer for the Day. Interviews with their leading clerics.
And more religious programming than on all other networks combined.
And, I’d say a less aggressively secularist editorial environment than at the Guardian, the Indy, the Times, the tabs etc.
Only the Telegraph newspapers are more sympathetic to religion than the BBC.
JR – you may have proved that the BBC did offer coverage of the trials, but as previously pointed out, much of this was pigeon-holed in the Scotland section on the site rather than the main UK section.
It was only because I have an RSS feed that flags up every new story on the BBC news site that I noticed the reports on the case, as many of them either weren’t on the front page or were relegated to the side panel, which aren’t immediately noticable to audiences.
I doubt there are many people who trawl through every regional section of the website to find stories.
Maybe John Reith would like to name the “5 or 6” members of the BNP who frequent this site, maybe he would like to tell us how he knows. Failure to do so would lead to the inevitable conclusion that it was just another smear which does nothing for the reputation either of yourself or of the corporation you purport to represent.
Speaking as a man unaffiliated to any particular party, but who has generally voted Conservative, I find the BNP totally abhorrent, and their views very disturbing, and the thought of their holding national power is frankly scary. HOWEVER, as well as the simmering racism, they make some obvious points about the Islamic threat that no other party is willing to make, and for that reason there is a little part of me that wants them to have some limited success – as a means of spurring one of the parties into accepting reality rather than speaking in bland platitudes and caving in to every unreasonable Islamic demand.
The BBC and the labour spokespeople are right – the BNP’s threat needs to be squashed. They are also horribly wrong – curbing their (and our) right to free speech is always wrong, however much we dislike it, and will most likely lead to a backlash and a consequent increase in their success. All of what they said was distasteful and nasty, none of what they said was inciting violence.
The Islamic threat is real and is both a short and a long-term threat to our way of life. One example – if I’d said 6 years ago that you wouldn’t be able to carry liquid on aircrafts you’d have thought me barmy. Small restriction on our freedom upon small restriction on our freedom. The BBC and the three political parties want us to believe that the Moderate Muslims will stem the Islamic threat and we are worrying about nothing, and they want us to believe that climate change is the biggest challenge to our futures.
In 20 years we’ll see; my money’s on a new eco-scare and the next ice-age being the chatter of the day, but the Islamic threat unravelling, or having unravelled, at pace.
They are odious people who I would like not to give the time of day, but the BNP are the only political organisation that have addressed this issue while the rest bury their heads in the sand and bang on about melting Ice-Caps (as opposed to the ones that are growing in Antarctica).
I think he’s shooting at the wrong target.
i think your never wrong,like the rest
of your chums at the bbc.you remind me of a cult member,never question the master,the all knowing bbc.
you should change your name to john rajneesh.
JR
You’re bound to think he’s shooting at the wrong target. You work for the BBC.
The BBC should give extra coverage to Christianity as it’s the national religion. But your list of programs missed out Jerry Springer the Opera.
When can we expect to see Mohammed the Ballet or even some cartoons.
You can’t seriously suggest that the BBC are as scared of violence from Christians as Muslims.
He is just re-affirming the left-liberal bias which was the subject of an embarrassing recent seminar held by BBC employees and which is the basis for this site.
This is the same BBC that put only one leader of a political party into their Christmas edition of Eastenders.
I mean Charles Kennedy?
As the Spirit of Christmas Future?
Just before a General Election?
No agenda there.
The risk to B-BBC’s reputation is greater now than during the local elections.
John Reith | 12.11.06 – 6:33 pm | #
Take away that first “B” Reith and you may have a point.
The risk to the BBC’s reputation? How about the Nick Griffin stitch-up, politically motivated trial, re-trial, and, when acquitted, the national platform he was offered to peddle his views.
You’ve created a working-class hero who took on the BBC, Tony’s corrupt cronies and the chattering classes and won, so it’s rich to see you here, Reith, smearing the people who post on this site as BNP members.
Way to cock the shot-gun, point it at your own groin and pull the trigger. Way to go, BBC. Great use of the licence fee there, eh?
In fact, I think it’s worthwhile quoting that once more: “The risk to B-BBC’s reputation is greater now than during the local elections.”
You keep telling yourself that.
The white thugs doing the violence don’t look at all like Christians from where I’m standing, but rather the products of the BBC’s default philosophical position, secular materialism (used to be called Communism).
I have not, nor ever have been (and viery likely will never be) a member of the BNP.
Why? They are a left-wing party economically.
Hi Mr Reith, I don’t know about the BBC website, but I do know you teh Beeb didn’t report on the case at all once it had been established the Kriss Donald murder was racially motivated in 2004.
The three reports on the BBC when his body were found were aired while BBC reporters were speculating on Donald being a member of a gang, or having been in a relationships with a Muslim female. I guess being a completely innocent 15 year old was not so interesting.
The Anthony Walker case was reported 36 times on the national bulletin, with the earthquake in Pakistan happening between the time of the murder and the trial.
For an insight into the disgusting BBC logic about reporting these murders have a listen to Fran Unsworth, BBC Head of Newsgathering, clutching at straws. Scottish bias? Opening of arts centre? Yeah right! Have your sick bags ready: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/shared/player/vid100.stm?clippos=0&clipurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da68002d768/bb/09012da68002d97c_16x9_bb!asx&title=NewsWatch%202%20December%202005&wintype=200&rhs=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4490000/newsid_4499400/bb_wm_4499440.stm&cs=news&fsname=bb_wm_fs&bw=bb
Charles Kennedy?
As the Spirit of Christmas Future?
Charles Kennedy had a lot of Xmas spirit, enough for the whole year round in-fact.
Another fact the BBC’s Commons Journalists didn’t think was worth mentioning to the voting public.
I notice team JR have still not said where they got their story information from. A question that has been asked a number of times.
It seems the BBC is so worried about sites like BBBC they have set up a unit to monitor blogs and post rebuttals.
I wonder just how many researchers are spending taxpayers money trying desperately to save what’s left of the BBC’s reputation.
Not doing too good a job either.
John Reith
Heron has a pertinent question: just who are these 5 or 6 BNP-ers? Come on, name names.
John Reith,
1) You keep offering long lists of links showing how the BBC has covered Kriss Donald’s second trial in detail, as if that refuted Laban. But that’s exactly what Laban said in his second paragraph, where he marvelled at how much coverage there was now.
2) You’ve picked up on Kriss Donald. Not denying your right to focus on whatever most interests you, and unlike you I don’t think that the fact that the BNP shares your interest makes you a BNP supporter, but Laban’s post had as much or more to say on the coverage of the Scott Parker murder and the Walker/Young-Sam comparison. E.g. “The most telling contrast is between the coverage of the Anthony Walker and Isiah Young-Sam murders … yet the coverage ratio (127 stories to 16) is remarkable.” Have you any comments on these cases?
3) These reporting restrictions. Do you know when the two sets of restrictions mentioned by Rosalind McInnes commenced and ended? Maybe I’m using the wrong search terms but I can’t find it anywhere.
4) Isn’t it the case that the Scottish courts are forever chucking about reporting restrictions and more or less the same BBC/STV/Herald/Daily Record combo are forever getting them lifted? I could swear I’ve heard the same thing several times about trials of drug dealers and such.
JR’s (Who’s on the JR-shift today? Get your timesheets checked) three posts above all contain links to the Scottish site, but none to the national main UK site.
The murder was reported on TV news up here, but only as a local story and NOT on the main national news except at the verdict. That I know as fact, because I live up here.
J.G. writes:
“I notice team JR have still not said where they got their story information from. A question that has been asked a number of times.”
This is undeniably true and the silence from Reith on this point (not to mention the ludicrous BNP membership accusations) has been deafening.
J.G. adds: “It seems the BBC is so worried about sites like BBBC they have set up a unit to monitor blogs and post rebuttals.”
It’s hard not to agree, I must say.
I just visited the BNP website so I could be one of the 5 or 6 BNP members that JR mentioned. Oh! But he visited their website too, so he’s in the BNP.
Of course, following the trial, we all know what the BNP are thinking even though they don’t necessarily say it, for example:
For reasons of the British national interest, the BNP is moderately and prudently more sympathetic to the Israeli side, simply because a) Israelis are not trying to conquer the world and subject it to their religion, b) their adversaries very much are, and c) Israel is a part of Western, if not European, Civilisation, and the Arab world is not.
That’s strange: that’s almost what I’m thinking! I really must be a f**kin’ holocaust-denying, knuckle-draggin’ nazi like the BNP, well Mark Collett anyway.
As JR’s last comment was at 1214, it’s probably worth waiting till at least 1400 for a response.
Probably on one of those legendary BBC long lunches.
But please, no one complain.
It’s not like we’re paying for it.
[Gotta say here (a) no one is obliged to be continuously present in internet debates, K! I’d hate to be held to that standard myself. (b) Speaking as somebody who has been accused of being several people, it is almost impossible to disprove, and argument about this sort of thing does derail more germane debate. I said more about this on another thread but right at the end so nobody noticed.
I don’t mean to single out you as a bad guy, K. It’s just an opportune moment to say something I’ve been meaning to say for a while. – NS]
Edited By Siteowner
Thank you for that link to the interview with Fran Unsworth, John Bull.
I urge people to take a look. Here it is again:
link
The BBC interviewer, whose name I ought to know but it’s slipped my mind, does a commendable job. Speaking after the first trial, he mentions that Kriss Donald’s murder had at that time been mentioned on national news just three times compared to 36 mentions on the national news for Anthony Walker’s murder. He also picks up Fran Unsworth’s circular reasoning when she says that the Walker case was “more newsworthy in our terms.” I note that Ms Unsworth does to a certain extent admit deficiencies in BBC reporting of both the Christopher Yates and Kriss Donald murders. That is a start.
GCooper
Yes, if as appears, JR is using an internal BBC database to push his point, either
A – he is doing so with the BBC’s knowledge in which case they are operating an (un)official (but basically covert) rebuttal unit
B – he is doing so without the BBC’s knowledge in which case he is using their internal database for personal benefit, albeit in defence of the BBC.
I genuinely do not know which it is.
Or maybe another explanation which I am missing. John Reith, please enlighten us!
Naturally, when the BBC want to highlight something important they sure know how.
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9100/bbbushkt2.jpg
Look at those monster letters.