Why Does a Suspected Anti-Muslim Attack Barely Make the News?


in reply to geneva_convenience

Just wanna add that a Muslim man also got stabbed two months ago alongside the Jewish men but that was completely ignored. Not sure why Zeteo frames it as an antisemitic attack when the perpetrator of that one was a man with a mental disorder.
in reply to geneva_convenience

Nah it's getting in the way of class war. You're confusing a symptom with the disease. A white guy targeting Muslim immigrants is a symptom of billionaires and the ownership class monopolizing the media and running non stop propaganda to make the working class fight itself and not them.

AlHouthi4President doesn't like this.

in reply to HM King Charles III DG FD

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

That's crazy the BBC completely removed any mention of Muslims or Islam from their headline.

And I'm not sure where that article is placed, but it's not on my BBC page

This entry was edited (2 days ago)
in reply to HM King Charles III DG FD

Compare how the Golders Green attack and this one were reported by BBC and other media outlets. Golders Green insisted it was "terrorism" and he was a "terrorist". It was definite and insistent.

Count how many times this BBC report uses "allegedly" and "appearing"/ "appears". Far more moderate and tentative. This is what happens with these type of attacks: if you're brown or black it's certainly "terrorism" and if you're white British then it's possibly an "incident" of some sort.

Two-tier reporting.

in reply to geneva_convenience

100%.

Just look at the little noise made about neo-nazi, Alina Burn, in Bristol who attempted to behead someone with an axe she accused of being muslim.

Or the lack of noise about the firebombings of mosques, rapes of muslim girls and women, deliberate knocking down of black and brown people and the list if hate attacks goes on.

And yet a mentally ill Sudan-born British man is labelled a "terrorist" or someone who may (or not?) have driven car at a Manchester synagogue is called a "mass terrorist" attack even though police killed 50% of the victims (1 person).

It's Two-tier racist reporting (and it aint anti-white for sure).

in reply to geneva_convenience

The article spends an awful lot of time talking about the government and pretty much glosses over the media.

The government responds to public interest, if there is more public interest on a topic the government will spend more time addressing it.

Public interest is by and large driven by the media (and even when it's not it often appears to be so).

The problem here is that the media is not covering this widely enough. This is perhaps understandable with privately owned media, who have their own vested interests, but I think the bigger question is why state-funded news organisations aren't better at picking this up. That is a root cause and political issue.

This entry was edited (2 days ago)