>Going on history of the BBC racial bias more likely a case of no interest in promoting black racists and not talking about racism towards white people.
What history, specifically, are you referring to?
>BBC quotes members of the public on race issues frequently. They could have used quotes but did not. Same way they didn't specifically denounce anti-white remarks. Instead, they specifically commented on Islamophobia of which she made no comments that were.
No-one in the public was talking about this woman. This was a terminally online thing, but she was an employee of the BBC and so they acted.
>Yes, downplayed acid attacks. I say this because they could do the same with verbal racial abuse of black players but don't. They are also vanishingly rare along with being non-violent. Instead, racial abuse of black players is seen as a big problem.
How did they downplay acid attacks?
What would they be comparing racial abuse of black players to? And it's not been in the news for some time now. Acid attacks have been, and are big news when they crop up here. Don't dictate to me about my own country.
>My opinion is by deflecting to mentioning microaggressions is equating them. Along with saying acid attacks are vanishingly rare it is a way of downplaying acid attacks.
Or, more accurately, it's public reassurance and putting them into context when stacked against other more common forms of violent crime. What would you have them do exactly?
>I said a Tommy Robinson type. Anyone they could label far right the conversation wouldn't be acid attacks being vanishingly rare. It would be a case of a rise in far right hate the same way acid attacks have risen in the last couple of years.
The major issue would be the case of far-right hate, and not specifically the method of attack used. In terms of motive for this, might I remind you, week-long frontpage manhunt - seemed to be domestic related, and/or misogynistic in motive.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 months ago
My history of viewing the BBC coverage of racial issues.
Still doesn't negate the fact they avoided anti-white racism to focus on Islamophobia but that wasn't even an issue with their employee.
Downplaying of acid attacks I already covered.
I'm British. Racial abuse of black football payers is always in the news. Just before the Brentford player there was a Coventry player. Just recently there was something Henry was involved in.
Point is that they don't do that with something like a black on white violent hate crime. Extremely rare but I don't see them doing that. Quite the opposite.
reply
share
Skavau (11228)
5 months ago
>Still doesn't negate the fact they avoided anti-white racism to focus on Islamophobia but that wasn't even an issue with their employee.
The article didn't say very much at all.
>Downplaying of acid attacks I already covered.
That you've asserted, and provided no evidence for other than "it feels like that". More accurately, it's public reassurance and putting them into context when stacked against other more common forms of violent crime. What would you have them do exactly? How much attention should acid attacks get?
>I'm British. Racial abuse of black football payers is always in the news. Just before the Brentford player there was a Coventry player. Just recently there was something Henry was involved in.
Those weren't huge news items. It's only really big when it happens to England players.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 months ago
Nothing at all about anti-white racism.
Put it this way, I don't think if a Tommy Robinson type attacked a Muslim mother and daughter with a hammer, they'd say hammer attacks are rare.
They were covered by most of the media. I've seen media coverage of this when it happens in non-league or youth football. More media coverage than it deserves for rare non-violent incidents.
reply
share
Skavau (11228)
5 months ago
>Nothing at all about anti-white racism.
A brief article that mentions very little at all because, I suspect, the employee was the BBC and it would pay for them to say very little at all. On the topic of their coverage generally:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46065766
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65906962
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978
>They were covered by most of the media. I've seen media coverage of this when it happens in non-league or youth football. More media coverage than it deserves for rare non-violent incidents.
One the sports pages. They weren't frontpage news at all.
The notion that racial abuse to non-league players gets more coverage than the week-long manhunt for this guy who threw acid at a woman is just obvious nonsense.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 months ago
BBC has special section devoted to racism. 99% are racism from white people. Anecdotes, polls, opinions etc.
Sports might get read as much as the news. I didn't say racism in non-league gets more attention. Racial abuse of players gets more attention than it deserves considering its basically mean words.
reply
share
Skavau (11228)
5 months ago
>Sports might get read as much as the news. I didn't say racism in non-league gets more attention. Racial abuse of players gets more attention than it deserves considering its basically mean words.
Are you going to claim that the Ivory Coast vs. DR Congo match for instance is a bigger story in the UK, right now, than the acid attacker?
What is it you think the BBC should be doing regarding this acid attack? It's frontpage news every single day.
reply
share