[prog2djent]

In my opinion, with regards to crimes commited where race is involved, I think the BBC has an anti-white bias, not extreme, but there.

Now I am not some god damn right-wing conspiracy loon who applies the soundbite "anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white" or think that the so-called "cultural marxism" conspiracy ia actually real, both claims are pretty stupid and unfounded.

The BBC has been accused of lots of things, it has a pro-Israel bias, or it has a pro-Lebannon-Hezbolloah or palestine Bias, its pro-muslims, or anti-muslim, the Sikh and Hindu community say they have been marginalised in favour of muslims, but others claim the BBC never comments on Sihk's or Hinud's in negative light etc etc.

But in my opinion, the BBC will not report blatent anti-white crimes, but will froth at the mouth whenever an anti-black or anti-asian/muslim crime is commited. They also like to jump at the opportunity of reporting anti-black crimes in the US, but never the other way round, the Trayvon-Zimmerman case is a good example, in that there have been multiple anti-white crimes commited in responce, but major media ignore it, aswell as the rise in anti-latino/asian crimes.

I don't want to bombard you with link, the research is easy enough to do yourself.

[prog2djent]

Poll is multiple choice too

[Carecup]

I think its unfair to brand the BBC as having an anti-white bias because of the Trayvon Martin case. Lets face it, it was a huge social media storm that promoted that particular case, as well as the supposed bias within the police establishment. As far as I know the BBC, like every other news outlet reported the case initially but largely ignored it afterward. This seems much more telling of the fact that people just aren't that interested in a murder that happens on the other side of the world, when plenty happen locally.

Once more I'd dispute that actually the BBC does report these types of crimes, in their local news, but unless it has some great noteworthy part to it, it will not be included on the national level, simply because there are many other international and national news stories to be covered in the 1/2 an hour they have.

[Annoying-Mouse]

No unless you can prove otherwise (and have to account for selection bias). You're a smart man, don't you know that opinions are supposed to be based on evidence? Don't you know how the media works? It isn't there to merely report every single crime. Don't you know that a selection has to take place? Can't you see the difference between reporting on the Zimmerman case which was very popular globally and everyone was talking about it and a general racist crime against white which no one is talking about? How many racist attacks happen against ethnic minorities that don't get reported? Confirmation bias. In comparison to number of whites in countries:number of racial attacks against whites and number of blacks:number of racial attacks against blacks, blacks have higher racial attacks against themselves. Same with Asians probably.

[prog2djent]

Well this went under the radar.

[fbear]

Eh, I don't live in the UK yet but from what I have seen I would have to agree somewhat. It's nowhere on the level of a lot of American media though. The point made by Carecup does make sense but I still find them trying to be overly 'politically-correct'.

[mimx]

There was some pretty obvious bias in some of the Treyvon Martin articles, but mainstream news is awful anyway. That's not some come read the Socialist Worker thing, I'm sure that's terrible too. Try reading an article about something you're remotely knowledgeable about from most any news outlet, and you'll start to wonder why you trust it for the stuff you know next to nothing about.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by mimx)
There was some pretty obvious bias in some of the Treyvon Martin articles, but mainstream news is awful anyway. That's not some come read the Socialist Worker thing, I'm sure that's terrible too. Try reading an article about something you're remotely knowledgeable about from most any news outlet, and you'll start to wonder why you trust it for the stuff you know next to nothing about.

Oh man don't get me started on far-left news sources, despite the fact there are loads in the UK, if we look at other major national papers, the bias swings to the centre-left, the Guardian, Indy, FT, Observer, NS, MS, Mirror, Star sort of, and then on the right, what have we got? The mail and express which are middle market (Broadsheet+Tabloid mix) which no one takes seriously, then we have the Sun and Times which no one trust beacuse of Murdoch, and that's it.

Why can't there be a good right wing paper to rival the Guardian and indy? I mean the only other is the telegraph which is as dull as dishwater and of late, has been getting a tad too sensationalist since the expenses shizz.

[Scumbaggio]

I think there is a reluctance to describe a racist attack on white people as such.

The daily mirror reported an attack on a white guy by 4 muslim asians and failed to mention that it WAS a racist attack.

If the victim deems it racist then it is so and should be reported as such.

[Blackburn_Allen]

Of course they do. They are scared that reporting these crimes will increase the support that organisations such as the EDL and BNP have. Anyone that denies this is simply burying their head under the sand.