Who’s the usual lot? The BBC usually sticks to reporting the facts which will be how the police designate it. You’ll notice they don’t say terrorism for the Golders Green knife attack but just report what the suspect is charged with, even though the police declared it a potential terrorist incident at the time.
The suspect in the Golders Green terror attack has been named as Essa Sulieman, a Somali-born British man
And
The site of the terrorist incident is just a seven-minute walk from where four ambulances owned by a Jewish volunteer-led medical association were firebombed
But I applaud your reticence in using the “terrorist” moniker and calling him a “topless man” instead… because he is white and clearly not a danger to other white people. I forgot “terrorists” are only brown and black people. Apologies.
Well the mail and telegraph are shitty papers, I was confused because the article linked was a BBC one and their reporting at least tries to stick to impartial reporting guidelines.
Pretty much all the news outlets I read and listened to said the same thing. There’s no exceptionalism happening. Black and brown men who are possibly - but might not be - followers of Islam are immediately branded as terrorists (even if the “terrorist” has a history of mental illness). White racists engaged in similar attacks (including attempted beheadings, rape, firebombings, knocking down muslim women with cars) don’t receive the same labelling. We saw in Southampton that, instead, the media wants is to understand white “patriots’ grievances”. It DOES help drawing attention to the two-tier journalism we have operating.
Worth also reminding about the so-called “terrorism” of the potestors in the Filton trial. Or the elderly people and priests arrested and soon to be prosecuted for holding up a sign saying they support Palestine Action and will end up with a conviction as terrorists. We DO need to draw attention to the two-tier nature of all this.
I’d like the usual knee-jerk declarations of “TERRORISM” by the usual lot immediatley - without any proper scrutiny and with prejudice.
Who’s the usual lot? The BBC usually sticks to reporting the facts which will be how the police designate it. You’ll notice they don’t say terrorism for the Golders Green knife attack but just report what the suspect is charged with, even though the police declared it a potential terrorist incident at the time.
Two-tier reporting going on with headline-grabbing stuff like this:
Daily Mail
Daily Telegraph
And
But I applaud your reticence in using the “terrorist” moniker and calling him a “topless man” instead… because he is white and clearly not a danger to other white people. I forgot “terrorists” are only brown and black people. Apologies.
Well the mail and telegraph are shitty papers, I was confused because the article linked was a BBC one and their reporting at least tries to stick to impartial reporting guidelines.
Quoting two terrible news sources doesn’t help. The DM particularly is hellish, stirring bigotry throughout.
Pretty much all the news outlets I read and listened to said the same thing. There’s no exceptionalism happening. Black and brown men who are possibly - but might not be - followers of Islam are immediately branded as terrorists (even if the “terrorist” has a history of mental illness). White racists engaged in similar attacks (including attempted beheadings, rape, firebombings, knocking down muslim women with cars) don’t receive the same labelling. We saw in Southampton that, instead, the media wants is to understand white “patriots’ grievances”. It DOES help drawing attention to the two-tier journalism we have operating.
Worth also reminding about the so-called “terrorism” of the potestors in the Filton trial. Or the elderly people and priests arrested and soon to be prosecuted for holding up a sign saying they support Palestine Action and will end up with a conviction as terrorists. We DO need to draw attention to the two-tier nature of all this.