LogFAQs > #876994557

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	BBC describes man as 'Muslim' when he's a victim, 'Indian' after he molests girl
AdviceMan 04/11/17 3:26:17 PM #31:	Esrac posted... Anteaterking posted... His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case. I don't see the malicious cover up that you do. Not one said anything about a malicious coverup. What this is, though, is an example of a media outlet using editorial license to word stories in a way that suits a particular agenda. No, I don't mean like a spooky conspiracy thing, just that, in this case, left leaning publications may want to present stories involving Muslims as sympathetic to them to stymie Islamophobia. It's kind of like that business times story about Colin Moriarty's tweeting a joke on women's day. They called it racist to make it seem so much worse than it was. Even when it had nothing to do with race. Do publications, right or left, put in the religion of anyone who commits a crime if it has nothing to do with it? Do people say "Christian man shoots 3 people". If he bombs an abortion clinic, they will. If he is beaten up by an atheist group that hates religious people, they will. So why did they say he was Muslim? Because the ban was originally intended to target "radical islam", and the fact that he would be denied a visa could have been because of his religion. If the media believes religion might be a factor, they will mention it. If they don't, they will not. You're assuming intent on extremely shaky grounds. --- "I'm not racist but, BLM sure did make me racist." -Skasa I'm just here to offer you advice, take it or leave it. <cite>AdviceMan posted [p:876994557] in BBC descri... [t:75225263]...</cite> <quote><cite>Esrac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case. I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.</quote> Not one said anything about a malicious coverup. What this is, though, is an example of a media outlet using editorial license to word stories in a way that suits a particular agenda. No, I don't mean like a spooky conspiracy thing, just that, in this case, left leaning publications may want to present stories involving Muslims as sympathetic to them to stymie Islamophobia. It's kind of like that business times story about Colin Moriarty's tweeting a joke on women's day. They called it racist to make it seem so much worse than it was. Even when it had nothing to do with race.</quote> Do publications, right or left, put in the religion of anyone who commits a crime if it has nothing to do with it? Do people say "Christian man shoots 3 people". If he bombs an abortion clinic, they will. If he is beaten up by an atheist group that hates religious people, they will. So why did they say he was Muslim? Because the ban was originally intended to target "radical islam", and the fact that he would be denied a visa could have been because of his religion. If the media believes religion might be a factor, they will mention it. If they don't, they will not. You're assuming intent on extremely shaky grounds. --- "I'm not racist but, BLM sure did make me racist." -Skasa I'm just here to offer you advice, take it or leave it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1