Racist Murder And The BBC

(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.

Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to Racist Murder And The BBC

  1. jburns says:

    Any fair-minded person with a fragment of intelligence will know that the BBC, and the media in general, is biased to the point of being seen as anti white. Remember the “BBC is Hideously white” statement?
    Also, as if to prove my point the leader of the British Communist Party, Anita Halpin, she of the financial windfall of £20.5m, is exposed as the treasurer of no-less the National Union of Journalists and a leading figure of the TUC. No coincidence here then about media hostility to the British National Party. The leader of the racist Asian (Muslim) thugs who tortured and killed Kriss Donald was sentenced to ‘life’ and a minimum of 25 years…thats ok then is it? He will be out in time for his 54th birthday! Bring back the rope.

       0 likes

  2. bootroll says:

    Kriss Donald was not just stabbed. Tell the truth.
    He was terrorised on a 200 mile journey,he was castrated,he had both eyes gouged out and he was stabbed repeatedly before being set on fire and left in a dark, lonely lane to die of his horrendous injuries. The person who discovered his body thought, at first, it was a mutilated,dead pig.
    How do I know this?- not from the BBC!
    The non-coverage of the Charlene Downes case by the BBC news is another example of their gross negligence.
    The BBC has failed to cover these news items responsibly, truthfully or urgently.What else are they censoring? Why are they behaving like this?- because they can,because they are not answerable to anyone. Because they are not in competition with other news organisations for sales etc. so who cares and so what! This is the attitude of the new BBC, dumbing down, patronising and sucking up to the government.
    The BBC is no longer the voice of our country,it is a pathetic shadow of it’s former self.
    I do not want to pay my licence fee. I do not want to support these muppets and their dumbed down,infantile muppet news anymore. We should organise a boycott.

       0 likes

  3. DifferentAnon says:

    Bootroll: where did you read he was castrated? Got a link by any chance?

       0 likes

  4. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    DifferentAnon:

    I’ve just seen your post from 14.11.06 – 1:45 pm. My apologies.
    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116043227974617317/#317581

    You say:
    “JBH: why hasn’t the rest of the media picked up on the claims in your book, out of interest?”

    All sorts of reasons. Here’s a few off the top of my head.

    1.
    In my experience most journalists are only too happy to melt into the closed-shop liberal culture that is the UK media, whether out of a shared tribal political loyalty or a sense of self-preservation or both. Only now are some journalists starting to say openly that they feel uncomfortable with the liberal consensus.

    2.
    The Guardian is the icon of the British media, especially among the BBC with its suffocating agenda-setting power.

    3.
    Back in 1997 Hamilton and the Tories were hated. Hamilton still is among journalists. The Hamilton affair shows how the media was whipped up by the happy-clappy we-love-Tony-Blair euphoria at the time and lost its ability to think straight. No one likes being shown up, and that includes egocentric journalists working for our national media, especially by two freelances, based in Manchester some 200 miles away from the action.

    4.
    The Hamilton affair and our investigation of it constitutes a case study that exposes not just the Guardian’s criminality but also the incurious self-serving wire-guided ways of the entire British media.

    5.
    All UK newspapers, including the Mail and Telegraph titles, repeated uncritically the lies about the Hamilton affair that the Guardian disseminated through the Press Association. Should the true story come out they’ll all have some serious explaining to do as to how it could have happened, especially the Telegraph, whose journalists have examined and endorsed our research, but whose editor at the time, Charles Moore, opted to bury the story.

    6.
    The story is quite complex in certain areas and requires time to assimilate and establish the true facts that disprove what is written in the history books. Most journalists are quite happy to earn their living doing as little as possible.

    7.
    The British media is incredibly unaccountable. U.K. newspapers and broadcasters repeat information and entire stories disseminated by the Press Association without any accreditation whatsoever. This is quite unlike U.S. newspapers, which carry whole pages of news reports accredited to their own agency the Associated Press.

    8. Both of the Tory titles, the Mail and Telegraph, have serious joint business tie-ups with Guardian Media Group. It’s one thing to take a pop at the Guardian over its seditious reporting, it’s quite another to expose a story that would result in several of its senior staff being banged up Belmarsh gaol.

    9.
    Why would any journalist want to spend weeks of unpaid research in order to prove that the news organisation on which they depend for their living screwed up big time it its reporting of one of the biggest political controversies of all time?

    10.
    Taking account of all the above, isn’t it just a lot easier for everyone if everyone just moves on?

       0 likes

  5. Bryan says:

    Great post from Laban and great responses from other Biased BBC-ers. Sorry I got to it a bit late.

    John Reith and crew can try all the tricks they want to undermine this site but the undeniable fact is that we, along with others, are making an impact and the BBC is starting to take a serious look at itself, albeit timidly and with much reluctance.

    The BBC might even begin to discover in time that self-knowledge is a liberating thing. Then we’ll know that miracles never cease.

       0 likes

  6. Hereward the AWAKE! says:

    Jane Garvey? What an absolute moron! What do you expect? She’s a pc journalist. I bet she’s a loony left hippy wannabe to.

       0 likes

  7. Simpson John says:

    Reith’s post is an excellent and thorough explanation (and saved me a long post). The posts here suggesting BBC racism show considerable ignorance.

       0 likes

  8. Robbiekeane says:

    “10.
    Taking account of all the above, isn’t it just a lot easier for everyone if everyone just moves on?”

    With all due respect JBH yes. If your view is correct it’s a distressing miscarriage of justice and terrible for Hamilton, but it ain’t exactly the Birmingham six is it? What are your motivations for pursuing it with such zeal for so long and who is funding you to do so?

       0 likes

  9. Grimer says:

    John Simpson,

    You are one of the BBC’s worst offenders. Your ‘journalism’ is sloppy, self-serving, right-on drivel of the worst kind.

    In your time you’ve ‘liberated Kabul’, described the Taliban as ‘magnificent’ and excused suicide bombers as ‘misguided criminals’.

    Only a ‘journalist’ as inept as you could describe Reith’s post as ‘excellent and thorough’. Although, perhaps you can explain where Reith gets his information from? Does he have his own research team?

    As for your accusations regarding our ‘ignorance’, could you please explain why a story about a boy that was kidnapped, stabbed, immolated and then left to die, wasn’t covered on all BBC News output?

    Just admit it – it’s because he wasn’t black.

    I know it. You know it. Everybody in this whole bloody country knows it. Stop your lies for once in your miserable life and just admit the truth – the BBC will do anything to push its own political agenda.

       0 likes

  10. Laban says:

    On 12/11/06 at 4pm I asked BBC spokesman JR

    “Any comment on the contrast between Walker and Young-Sam while you’re in a commenting mood ?”

    After all, the post did say “The most telling contrast is between the coverage of the Anthony Walker and Isiah Young-Sam murders.”

    At 4.22 JR replied “I’ll get back to you on the other case”

    ** tumbleweed blows across road **

       0 likes

  11. Anonymous says:

    You mean Ross Parker, not Scott Parker.

    Still the link goes to a search for Ross Parker so all your stats are still 100% valid.

       1 likes