Extreme right wing terrorism

[Kizzy]

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/national-action-neo-nazi-terrorist-court-labour-mp-murder-plan-machete-rosie-cooper-latest-a8274521.html

[Marsh.]

why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...

Because these are "alleged crimes"?

[Tom4784]

Because it doesn't fit the image of terrorism that the media wants to portray. They want you to be scared of brown skin and head scarves and to be suspicious of muslims. They don't want a narrative of white right wing extremists targetting female members of the left because they're too busy pushing the anti-women narrative on the muslims.

No doubt that a lot of the media, if they cover this story at all will not describe this person as a terrorist but as a mentally disturbed individual, he probably doesn't have the right skin tone to call him a terrorist.

[Kizzy]

Because these are "alleged crimes"?

I'm not responding to you if you can't even be bothered to read the article.

He has been charged and appeared in court alongside 5 other named men.

[Marsh.]

He has been charged and appeared in court alongside 5 other named men.

In court "accused of alleged crimes".

Once found guilty, I'm all for plastering his name and face everywhere.

I detest this culture of vultures wanting names and shames rather than letting the justice system do their jobs first. It's incredibly damaging.

I'm not responding to you

Then don't.

[Tozzie]

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/national-action-neo-nazi-terrorist-court-labour-mp-murder-plan-machete-rosie-cooper-latest-a8274521.html

it's odd how 5 can be named yet one can't, wonder what legal reason it is.

[Kizzy]

My guess someone has paid for the privilege.

[jaxie]

I'm not responding to you if you can't even be bothered to read the article.

He has been charged and appeared in court alongside 5 other named men.

It seems a bit odd doesn't it? The only I can think of if the others have been named is perhaps he has some sort of mental condition that means he can't be treated the same as them like autism or something?

[Withano]

I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen.

[Kizzy]

It seems a bit odd doesn't it? The only I can think of if the others have been named is perhaps he has some sort of mental condition that means he can't be treated the same as them like autism or something?

People with autism have to face justice like everyone else.
Unless it is his mental age... but to be part of a sophisticated plot and purchase items such as those that seems unlikely :/

[bots]

it says pretty clearly he can't be named for legal reasons, which could be any number of things. It's not like he is not going to be tried/sentenced. Any terrorism is wrong, whoever does it and its treated equally by the courts, no matter the colour of skin.

[jaxie]

People with autism have to face justice like everyone else.
Unless it is his mental age... but to be part of a sophisticated plot and purchase items such as those that seems unlikely :/

Yeah what I meant was if he had severe autism, or some other mental issue there might be some doubt over him understanding the rights and wrongs and some grey area over being treated the same as adults he may have been with.

[Kizzy]

Yeah what I meant was if he had severe autism, or some other mental issue there might be some doubt over him understanding the rights and wrongs and some grey area over being treated the same as adults he may have been with.

Would he then be fit to stand trial?.. He is so you would think he could be named.

[AnnieK]

To be included in the same trial as the other defendants I would have thought he was mentally competent. I don't think I've seen a trial before where they name some but not all defendants. Seems odd.

[user104658]

Because it doesn't fit the image of terrorism that the media wants to portray. They want you to be scared of brown skin and head scarves and to be suspicious of muslims. They don't want a narrative of white right wing extremists targetting female members of the left because they're too busy pushing the anti-women narrative on the muslims.

No doubt that a lot of the media, if they cover this story at all will not describe this person as a terrorist but as a mentally disturbed individual, he probably doesn't have the right skin tone to call him a terrorist.See, I used to think it was about the media pushing an agenda and wanting to portray things a certain way... But I've more recently started to think, does the media really want anything other than to make money and sell as many copies as possible? Does the media not just go with what's popular?

So it's not that the media "wants to sell" an image of the brown-immigrant-monster-on-your-street... It's just that they know that that's what their readers want to hear. If they start veering away from the accepted narrative of their regular consumers, then people will spit their cornflakes and get their morning outrage elsewhere.

People don't want to hear that "Little James Born And Bred Known His Parents Since He Was A Nipper" has become a violent thug. That upsets their comfortable worldview. They want to hear that strange others from faraway places are the ones to fear.

[Kizzy]

I agree.

[user104658]

I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen.I think I agree with that; it's sort of like football hooliganism. The violence and destruction of property happens simply because that's what they want to do. That's their reason for being there. The rest is just excuses and a convenient way to band into a cohesive group.

There was recently a far right rally in my local town that was "countered" by a far left group. Not many from either side actually turned up and it was pretty clear that NEITHER was actually involved in it for the politics... It was just an excuse to wave things about and shout at each other. I'd be very, very surprised if you could have picked any one of them out of the crowd and had them discuss political philosophy with any degree of conviction.

[kirklancaster]

I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen.

Absolute biased TOSH - EVERY extremist is STUPID and DANGEROUS and should never be tolerated by the authorities or Society as a whole, no matter if they are Extreme LEFT WING or Extreme RIGHT WING.

Frustrated and angry people are welcomed by both LEFT and RIGHT WING Organisations in addition to dim-witted people, gullible people, poorly educated people, anti-Social people, people with 'Chips On Their Shoulders' and any other type of people.

We have a Democracy in this country and RIGHT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who make Death Threats to innocent politicians or anyone else are just as deserving of imprisonment as are LEFT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who intimidate and threaten and put their hands on such as Nigel Farage when he is out with his family having Sunday Lunch.

[Withano]

Absolute biased TOSH - EVERY extremist is STUPID and DANGEROUS and should never be tolerated by the authorities or Society as a whole, no matter if they are Extreme LEFT WING or Extreme RIGHT WING.

Frustrated and angry people are welcomed by both LEFT and RIGHT WING Organisations in addition to dim-witted people, gullible people, poorly educated people, anti-Social people, people with 'Chips On Their Shoulders' and any other type of people.

We have a Democracy in this country and RIGHT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who make Death Threats to innocent politicians or anyone else are just as deserving of imprisonment as are LEFT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who intimidate and threaten and put their hands on such as Nigel Farage when he is out with his family having Sunday Lunch.

I asked who was most welcoming, and I answered the extreme right.. Your post seems to have misinterpreted that for something else. This isn’t really relevant to the thread topic, Kirk.

[Brillopad]

Absolute biased TOSH - EVERY extremist is STUPID and DANGEROUS and should never be tolerated by the authorities or Society as a whole, no matter if they are Extreme LEFT WING or Extreme RIGHT WING.

Frustrated and angry people are welcomed by both LEFT and RIGHT WING Organisations in addition to dim-witted people, gullible people, poorly educated people, anti-Social people, people with 'Chips On Their Shoulders' and any other type of people.

We have a Democracy in this country and RIGHT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who make Death Threats to innocent politicians or anyone else are just as deserving of imprisonment as are LEFT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who intimidate and threaten and put their hands on such as Nigel Farage when he is out with his family having Sunday Lunch.

Very well put! Bigots on both sides - always have been and always will be.

[kirklancaster]

See, I used to think it was about the media pushing an agenda and wanting to portray things a certain way... But I've more recently started to think, does the media really want anything other than to make money and sell as many copies as possible? Does the media not just go with what's popular?

So it's not that the media "wants to sell" an image of the brown-immigrant-monster-on-your-street... It's just that they know that that's what their readers want to hear. If they start veering away from the accepted narrative of their regular consumers, then people will spit their cornflakes and get their morning outrage elsewhere.

People don't want to hear that "Little James Born And Bred Known His Parents Since He Was A Nipper" has become a violent thug. That upsets their comfortable worldview. They want to hear that strange others from faraway places are the ones to fear.

The media in this country SHY AWAY from mentioning COLOUR, RACE or even TERRORIST affiliations in criminal incidents until AFTER the 'suspected perpetrators' have been caught and arrested or the Police release definitive identifications.

Witness the LONG interval before the word Asian or Pakistani or Muslim was freely used by the media in the various Nationwide 'Children For Sex' 'Grooming' cases, and a host of other cases.

[Brillopad]

I asked who was most welcoming, and I answered the extreme right.. Your post seems to have misinterpreted that for something else. This isn’t really relevant to the thread topic, Kirk.

What’s relevant or not is a matter of perspective and you do not have the monopoly on perspective. Focusing more on your own words than those of other posters would likely be more productive and relevant to the thread.

[kirklancaster]

I asked who was most welcoming, and I answered the extreme right.. Your post seems to have misinterpreted that for something else. This isn’t really relevant to the thread topic, Kirk.

Here's what you put Withano:

Originally Posted by Withano View Post
"I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen."

You asked a RHETORICAL question which you immediately answered yourself so you were NOT asking a question but making a statement which I RIGHTFULLY interpreted as 'biased'.

If YOUR post is relevant to the thread topic then mine then certainly is too.

[bots]

the most obvious reason for him not being named is that he is the subject of another pending or ongoing trial. Does everything have to be some sort of conspiracy these days?

[Withano]

Here's what you put Withano:

Originally Posted by Withano View Post
"I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen."

You asked a RHETORICAL question which you immediately answered yourself so you were NOT asking a question but making a statement which I RIGHTFULLY interpreted as 'biased'.

If YOUR post is relevant to the thread topic then mine then certainly is too.

Literally nome of your posts have been on-topic in this thread yet. This is about 5 right wing extremists. You have not commented on them, or their affiliation. Just an overview on terrorism really, which isnt relevant.

[kirklancaster]

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/national-action-neo-nazi-terrorist-court-labour-mp-murder-plan-machete-rosie-cooper-latest-a8274521.html

I cannot answer your question concerning why one particular 'defendant' has not been named - perhaps BitOnTheSlide has answered correctly - but I DO agree with you Kizzy that there has NOT been the publicity to my knowledge which this case deserves - especially after the poor Jo Cox tragedy.

[Tom4784]

See, I used to think it was about the media pushing an agenda and wanting to portray things a certain way... But I've more recently started to think, does the media really want anything other than to make money and sell as many copies as possible? Does the media not just go with what's popular?

So it's not that the media "wants to sell" an image of the brown-immigrant-monster-on-your-street... It's just that they know that that's what their readers want to hear. If they start veering away from the accepted narrative of their regular consumers, then people will spit their cornflakes and get their morning outrage elsewhere.

People don't want to hear that "Little James Born And Bred Known His Parents Since He Was A Nipper" has become a violent thug. That upsets their comfortable worldview. They want to hear that strange others from faraway places are the ones to fear.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Fear sells newspapers and fear and ignorance is almost always interlinked hence why most newspapers won't refer to crimes like this as terrorism, because they want their boogeyman to have brown skin and to quote the Quran. It's simply more profitable to appeal to people's prejudices when it comes to profiting from their fear.

[Brillopad]

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Fear sells newspapers and fear and ignorance is almost always interlinked hence why most newspapers won't refer to crimes like this as terrorism, because they want their boogeyman to have brown skin and to quote the Quran. It's simply more profitable to appeal to people's prejudices when it comes to profiting from their fear.

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour. Idealism of any kind has its blind spot and will see exactly what it wants to see and ignore and discredit what it doesn’t. Ignorance is thriving all over the show as can be seen by those on both sides of the divide. So sanctomonious holier than though simply doesn’t cut it.

[Marsh.]

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour.

Nobody said it did.

[Tom4784]

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour. Idealism of any kind has its blind spot and will see exactly what it wants to see and ignore and discredit what it doesn’t. Ignorance is thriving all over the show as can be seen by those on both sides of the divide. So sanctomonious holier than though simply doesn’t cut it.

I didn't say it wasn't? I'm not quite sure what your issue is with what I said, can you clarify?

[Beso]

Chuck them in beside all the asian rape gangs and shut the door.

[Brillopad]

I didn't say it wasn't? I'm not quite sure what your issue is with what I said, can you clarify?

Such comments are loaded with bias. Right/left is not really the issue when it comes to violence and terrorism and has far more to do with character. Some are simply pre-disposed to aggression and violence and will hide behind whatever ideology, political or otherwise, that suits.

[Tom4784]

Such comments are loaded with bias. Right/left is not really the issue when it comes to violence and terrorism and has far more to do with character. Some are simply pre-disposed to aggression and violence and will hide behind whatever ideology, political or otherwise, that suits.

'Extreme Right Wing Terrorism' is loaded with bias? Would you say the same about other classifications of terrorism? Say, 'Islamic Terrorism?'

[kirklancaster]

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well said Kirk

[jaxie]

the most obvious reason for him not being named is that he is the subject of another pending or ongoing trial. Does everything have to be some sort of conspiracy these days?

Oh good point, I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

[jaxie]

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

Great post Kirk.

[Withano]

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

[Tom4784]

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

Very idealogical but not very realistic.

If the news itself was enough to sell newspapers then tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Mail and all the other trash would not be the best selling newspapers. Instead, you would have very plain newspapers reporting on the news in a neutral fashion but that's not the case, every story has a spin and that spin is dependant on the target audience it's aimed at.

Look at the Jo Cox shooting, that was an act of terrorism, the police treated it as such yet you still get some newspapers that refuse to report Thomas Mair as a terrorist, instead they'll call him a disturbed individual or a gunman because the term 'terrorist' is reserved to what their idea of a terrorist is and a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views.

News does not sell newspapers. Fear, outrage and confirmation bias is what truly sells newspapers. It's just the way things are. If it wasn't then the way the news is presented would be completely different.

[Brillopad]

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

Remind us how many people have been murdered by So-called Islamic terrorists throughout Europe recently and how many by so-called right-wing terrorists.

[Withano]

Remind us how many people have been murdered by So-called Islamic terrorists throughout Europe recently and how many by so-called right-wing terrorists.

Several for both, but thanks for further proving my point.

[jaxie]

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

Well you are missing the gaping point that one sort of terrorism is done as an ideology in the name of religion and the other is done due to a non religious ideology based on racism and extreme nationalism. So yes when terrorism is done in the name of religion then the religious idealogy promoting it gets a grilling. How or why would religion be relevant when the terroism was not related to religious idealogy?

Also in recent years terrorism related to religious idealogy has been on a much larger scale which makes it a larger focal talking point and bigger news. Weve not had many racists bombing rock concerts and running round Westminster Bridge with knives stabbing people at random. (Random members of the public I mean). Attacks of the racist kind seem to be more personal than public in the current climate which make them less of a public focal point. That isn't necessarily right but that's how it is. If the white supremists aren't a gang of Catholics claiming to do it for their faith and shouting hail Mary's why would religion come up? Religion did come up more with regard the IRA when they were active though that was also strongly about republicanism so the religion was more of a background discussion. Nazis were not affiliated to one particular religion but they did persecute one particular religious group.

On a personal level I find the God told me to do it type of idea for hurting others much harder to comprehend. But committing violence on others for any reason is vile and unacceptable.

[bots]

it was a big news item when a terrorist went on a killing spree on london bridge, it was a big news item when a terrorist murdered Jo Cox. I fail to see how this means the press have a specific agenda. They focus on the level of threat and the impact as they always do.

[Withano]

Well you are missing the gaping point that one sort of terrorism is done as an ideology in the name of religion and the other is done due to a non religious ideology based on racism and extreme nationalism. So yes when terrorism is done in the name of religion then the religious idealogy promoting it gets a grilling. How or why would religion be relevant when the terroism was not related to religious idealogy?

Also in recent years terrorism related to religious idealogy has been on a much larger scale which makes it a larger focal talking point and bigger news. Weve not had many racists bombing rock concerts and running round Westminster Bridge with knives stabbing people at random. (Random members of the public I mean). Attacks of the racist kind seem to be more personal than public in the current climate which make them less of a public focal point. That isn't necessarily right but that's how it is. If the white supremists aren't a gang of Catholics claiming to do it for their faith and shouting hail Mary's why would religion come up? Religion did come up more with regard the IRA when they were active though that was also strongly about republicanism so the religion was more of a background discussion. Nazis were not affiliated to one particular religion but they did persecute one particular religious group.

On a personal level I find the God told me to do it type of idea for hurting others much harder to comprehend. But committing violence on others for any reason is vile and unacceptable.

Just speaks volumes to me that the people trying desperately hard to avoid the topic are usually incredibly vocal on terrorism threads.

[Mystic Mock]

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/national-action-neo-nazi-terrorist-court-labour-mp-murder-plan-machete-rosie-cooper-latest-a8274521.html

We all know that the Media have their own agendas.

Hopefully this Terrorist will get a life sentence like all Terrorists should serve.

[kirklancaster]

Very idealogical but not very realistic.

If the news itself was enough to sell newspapers then tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Mail and all the other trash would not be the best selling newspapers. Instead, you would have very plain newspapers reporting on the news in a neutral fashion but that's not the case, every story has a spin and that spin is dependant on the target audience it's aimed at.

Look at the Jo Cox shooting, that was an act of terrorism, the police treated it as such yet you still get some newspapers that refuse to report Thomas Mair as a terrorist, instead they'll call him a disturbed individual or a gun man because the term 'terrorist' is reserved to what their idea of a terrorist is and a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views.

News does not sell newspapers. Fear, outrage and confirmation bias is what truly sells newspapers. It's just the way things are. If it wasn't then the way the news is presented would be completely different.


Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

In the case of poor Jo Cox's murder, I AGREE that a few newspapers DID display great bias in their reporting of what SHOULD have been facts but were instead NOT because honesty took second-place behind pushing those particular newspapers political Agendas, but - although you will not agree because of your own politics - those offending newspapers were mainly Left-Wing.

I believe that the evidence shows that Jo's killer Thomas Mair WAS and IS mentally ill whilst also showing him to have had definite links to Far Right organisations those organisations were NOT outlawed as 'Terrorist' organisations until AFTER this horrific murder, so to be precise, those newspapers (and any others) were WRONG to claim that Mair was a 'Terrorist in the TRUE sense of the word.

It is also relevant and very TELLING that despite comments made by the Crown Prosecution Service and the trial Prosecutor, Mair was NOT charged nor tried under ANY terrorism offence and also telling is the fact that Mair WAS accepted as being 'Mentally Ill' by the court.

Equally as telling - no matter what links Mair might have had with Far Right extremists - is the TRUTH behind claims that Mair shouted 'Britain First' when perpetrating the murder:

The FIRST and ORIGINAL claim that Mair shouted those words hailed from Aamir Tahir - a local dry cleaner who later ADMITTED that he was NOT even at the scene and that he had 'simply heard the allegation as second-hand information'.

Whilst another KEY witness, Hicham Ben Abdallah - who WAS at the scene - has said that he heard no such shout of 'Britain First' from Mair, and SURELY Mr Hitcham Ben Abdullah can be relied upon as a TRUTHFUL man because if he was NOT, then he would have every reason to damn Mair as belonging to a Right Wing Terrorist group by claiming that Mair DID shout that phrase.

Another 'anomaly' regarding another key witness, Graeme Howard who claimed to live on Bond Street near to the Murder Scene, is that no trace of any person of that name could be found on that short street.

So - YES - Jo Cox's callous murder was horrific AND an 'ACT' of Terror, but whether it was perpetrated by a 'Terrorist' or just a mentally ill lone murderer who had terrorist aspirations and affinities depends upon one's OWN particular 'Political Persuasion' and those of whichever newspaper one buys.

In any event, your claim that certain newspapers have refused to call Mair a 'Terrorist' because; "a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views" does not actually 'sit' with your other claim that these same 'trash' newspapers 'sensationalise' news merely to sell newspapers, because if that was true, they would have buried Mair under 'Terrorist' and 'Neo Nazi' labels regardless of the colour of his skin or his ethicity.

I have also noted instances where these same 'Trash' newspapers held back from using words such as 'Terrorist' in certain murders committed by Muslim 'Extremists' or Non-Muslims who held Muslim Extremist sympathies, where those murderers WERE also mentally ill, so I'm afraid on this subject Dezzy, we will have to agree to disagree.

[jaxie]

Just speaks volumes to me that the people trying desperately hard to avoid the topic are usually incredibly vocal on terrorism threads.

Well perhaps that is because you want it to. If that makes you happy go for it

[Livia]

it says pretty clearly he can't be named for legal reasons, which could be any number of things. It's not like he is not going to be tried/sentenced. Any terrorism is wrong, whoever does it and its treated equally by the courts, no matter the colour of skin.

I was losing the will to live till I reached this post.

The law doesn't care what colour you are. A terrorist is a terrorist. And as Bots says, there are any number of reasons why he cannot be named. There's a lot more focus on Islamic terrorism because there is a lot more of it right now so there is a lot of focus on it. It's not like everyone ignored the fact that the murder of Jo Cox was a Right wing act of terror.

[Cherie]

There is no outcry because they didn't succeed, there have been a few trials recently where the crime was intercepted before it was committed and there was no outcry then either, not sure why brown skin is brought into things, does that mean anyone with a tan? terrorism is terrorism whatever skin colour you are, I think most people know that

[user104658]

Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

Hmmmm on principle I mostly agree, although I would argue that The Sun is mostly non-working / working class and the DM really only extends as far as lower-middle class / blue+white collar, I wouldn't say it extends quite as fair as straight-middle (although obviously there's overlap in all areas).

But otherwise I agree; tabloids will always outsell other news sources for the simple reason that certain demographics will always be in a strong majority. What worries me about that though, and I'm SURE this is likely to offend :joker:... is that the working and underclass has on average a lower level of further education, and while that does not mean that they are "less intelligent" by any means, it DOES mean that they're more likely to be lacking in some of the critical reasoning skills that are needed to "read between the lines", or in other words, they are more likely to take what's IN the papers they read as face-value "fact", when it's likely to be full of half-truths, exaggerations and one or two straight up lies.


All of that said... none of it worries me half as much as what's happened over the last decade: people taking what they read on social media as actual news :umm2:. And this seems to happen across all classes and age ranges :facepalm:

South Park covered it recently in an episode... something like,

"I dunno, I've heard about you guys."

"That stuff isn't true."

"Yes it is... I saw it in the news."

"NO YOU ****ING DIDN'T YOU READ IT ON FACEBOOK!!"

" :shrug: "

[Brillopad]

Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

In the case of poor Jo Cox's murder, I AGREE that a few newspapers DID display great bias in their reporting of what SHOULD have been facts but were instead NOT because honesty took second-place behind pushing those particular newspapers political Agendas, but - although you will not agree because of your own politics - those offending newspapers were mainly Left-Wing.

I believe that the evidence shows that Jo's killer Thomas Mair WAS and IS mentally ill whilst also showing him to have had definite links to Far Right organisations those organisations were NOT outlawed as 'Terrorist' organisations until AFTER this horrific murder, so to be precise, those newspapers (and any others) were WRONG to claim that Mair was a 'Terrorist in the TRUE sense of the word.

It is also relevant and very TELLING that despite comments made by the Crown Prosecution Service and the trial Prosecutor, Mair was NOT charged nor tried under ANY terrorism offence and also telling is the fact that Mair WAS accepted as being 'Mentally Ill' by the court.

Equally as telling - no matter what links Mair might have had with Far Right extremists - is the TRUTH behind claims that Mair shouted 'Britain First' when perpetrating the murder:

The FIRST and ORIGINAL claim that Mair shouted those words hailed from Aamir Tahir - a local dry cleaner who later ADMITTED that he was NOT even at the scene and that he had 'simply heard the allegation as second-hand information'.

Whilst another KEY witness, Hicham Ben Abdallah - who WAS at the scene - has said that he heard no such shout of 'Britain First' from Mair, and SURELY Mr Hitcham Ben Abdullah can be relied upon as a TRUTHFUL man because if he was NOT, then he would have every reason to damn Mair as belonging to a Right Wing Terrorist group by claiming that Mair DID shout that phrase.

Another 'anomaly' regarding another key witness, Graeme Howard who claimed to live on Bond Street near to the Murder Scene, is that no trace of any person of that name could be found on that short street.

So - YES - Jo Cox's callous murder was horrific AND an 'ACT' of Terror, but whether it was perpetrated by a 'Terrorist' or just a mentally ill lone murderer who had terrorist aspirations and affinities depends upon one's OWN particular 'Political Persuasion' and those of whichever newspaper one buys.

In any event, your claim that certain newspapers have refused to call Mair a 'Terrorist' because; "a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views" does not actually 'sit' with your other claim that these same 'trash' newspapers 'sensationalise' news merely to sell newspapers, because if that was true, they would have buried Mair under 'Terrorist' and 'Neo Nazi' labels regardless of the colour of his skin or his ethicity.

I have also noted instances where these same 'Trash' newspapers held back from using words such as 'Terrorist' in certain murders committed by Muslim 'Extremists' or Non-Muslims who held Muslim Extremist sympathies, where those murderers WERE also mentally ill, so I'm afraid on this subject Dezzy, we will have to agree to disagree.

Very well analysed Kirk - you should have been a lawyer! You hit the nail on the head every time.

[kirklancaster]

Hmmmm on principle I mostly agree, although I would argue that The Sun is mostly non-working / working class and the DM really only extends as far as lower-middle class / blue+white collar, I wouldn't say it extends quite as fair as straight-middle (although obviously there's overlap in all areas).

But otherwise I agree; tabloids will always outsell other news sources for the simple reason that certain demographics will always be in a strong majority. What worries me about that though, and I'm SURE this is likely to offend :joker:... is that the working and underclass has on average a lower level of further education, and while that does not mean that they are "less intelligent" by any means, it DOES mean that they're more likely to be lacking in some of the critical reasoning skills that are needed to "read between the lines", or in other words, they are more likely to take what's IN the papers they read as face-value "fact", when it's likely to be full of half-truths, exaggerations and one or two straight up lies.


All of that said... none of it worries me half as much as what's happened over the last decade: people taking what they read on social media as actual news :umm2:. And this seems to happen across all classes and age ranges :facepalm:

South Park covered it recently in an episode... something like,

"I dunno, I've heard about you guys."

"That stuff isn't true."

"Yes it is... I saw it in the news."

"NO YOU ****ING DIDN'T YOU READ IT ON FACEBOOK!!"

" :shrug: "

I cannot argue with you here T.S. and I agree also with your perception and concerns over 'Social Media' - something I NEVER directly participate in but have read a fair bit about.

[kirklancaster]

Very well analysed Kirk - you should have been a lawyer! You hit the nail on the head every time.

Thank you Brillo.

[Northern Monkey]

I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen.

Not really.I’d say many Muslim terrorists are stupid,frustrated and angry.ISIS are just as welcoming to those people.
All these organisations far right,far left and religious pray on idiots to join their cause.

[Nicky91]

Not really.I’d say many Muslim terrorists are stupid,frustrated and angry.They’re just as welcoming to those people.

nah, some are highly educated though


i really don't know what motivates them into becoming a terrorist, perhaps they see racist behaviour towards muslims in the west, or they are just crazy


i've seen that National geographic show once Inside 9/11 and they planned those attacks very carefully, and one mastermind is now in Guantánamo Bay goes by the initials of KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) CIA even found out about their WTC attack plans when they had a fire in their apartment in Phillipines, but CIA did nothing back then


so 9/11 was very preventable, even at airport security in america which was rightfully improved after 9/11 but just before the attacks knives were clearly visible on the x-ray scans and yet security did nothing

[Tom4784]

Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

In the case of poor Jo Cox's murder, I AGREE that a few newspapers DID display great bias in their reporting of what SHOULD have been facts but were instead NOT because honesty took second-place behind pushing those particular newspapers political Agendas, but - although you will not agree because of your own politics - those offending newspapers were mainly Left-Wing.

I believe that the evidence shows that Jo's killer Thomas Mair WAS and IS mentally ill whilst also showing him to have had definite links to Far Right organisations those organisations were NOT outlawed as 'Terrorist' organisations until AFTER this horrific murder, so to be precise, those newspapers (and any others) were WRONG to claim that Mair was a 'Terrorist in the TRUE sense of the word.

It is also relevant and very TELLING that despite comments made by the Crown Prosecution Service and the trial Prosecutor, Mair was NOT charged nor tried under ANY terrorism offence and also telling is the fact that Mair WAS accepted as being 'Mentally Ill' by the court.

Equally as telling - no matter what links Mair might have had with Far Right extremists - is the TRUTH behind claims that Mair shouted 'Britain First' when perpetrating the murder:

The FIRST and ORIGINAL claim that Mair shouted those words hailed from Aamir Tahir - a local dry cleaner who later ADMITTED that he was NOT even at the scene and that he had 'simply heard the allegation as second-hand information'.

Whilst another KEY witness, Hicham Ben Abdallah - who WAS at the scene - has said that he heard no such shout of 'Britain First' from Mair, and SURELY Mr Hitcham Ben Abdullah can be relied upon as a TRUTHFUL man because if he was NOT, then he would have every reason to damn Mair as belonging to a Right Wing Terrorist group by claiming that Mair DID shout that phrase.

Another 'anomaly' regarding another key witness, Graeme Howard who claimed to live on Bond Street near to the Murder Scene, is that no trace of any person of that name could be found on that short street.

So - YES - Jo Cox's callous murder was horrific AND an 'ACT' of Terror, but whether it was perpetrated by a 'Terrorist' or just a mentally ill lone murderer who had terrorist aspirations and affinities depends upon one's OWN particular 'Political Persuasion' and those of whichever newspaper one buys.

In any event, your claim that certain newspapers have refused to call Mair a 'Terrorist' because; "a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views" does not actually 'sit' with your other claim that these same 'trash' newspapers 'sensationalise' news merely to sell newspapers, because if that was true, they would have buried Mair under 'Terrorist' and 'Neo Nazi' labels regardless of the colour of his skin or his ethicity.

I have also noted instances where these same 'Trash' newspapers held back from using words such as 'Terrorist' in certain murders committed by Muslim 'Extremists' or Non-Muslims who held Muslim Extremist sympathies, where those murderers WERE also mentally ill, so I'm afraid on this subject Dezzy, we will have to agree to disagree.

Media is pretty much my area of expertise, you aren't going to get far by trying to explain it to me.

The newspapers tailor their spin to their target audience, that's pretty much a fact which is why things like Right Wing terrorism won't get reported on as much as Islamic terrorism because Britain as a whole is very Right Wing at the moment, most of the target audiences that these papers aim for don't want to hear about white terrorists that aren't killing for their own twisted take on Islam which is why this isn't a bigger story.

Thomas Muir was a terrorist, his murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated and was meant to inspire fear in the people who wished to remain.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"

If what Thomas Muir did does not qualify him as a terrorist then people must have a very incorrect view on what terrorism is. The newspapers and people that do not call him a terrorist can only be doing so because his face did not fit the current image of what terrorists look like. It's the same in the US, can you remember that teenager that shot up a gospel church in response to the Black Lives Matter movement? That was terrorism but I don't think many elements of the media called it out as such because the shooter wasn't a muslim.

This isn't something new, look back at the UK in the 70/80's, the image of a terrorist in those days were the IRA and the media went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people. Any terrorist attacks not related to the IRA probably would not have got much traction as it would have if it was done by an IRA terrorist for the same reasons why reports on Extreme Right Wing terrorism isn't getting traction in favour of Islamic terrorism. The media needs it's boogeyman to scare it's readers and these days their boogeyman of choice are muslims.

All terrorism should be reported the same way, all terrorism is bad. It's irresponsible and rather disgusting for large parts of the media to ignore Extreme Right Wing terrorism or downplay it like they have because it doesn't suit their narrative.

[Tom4784]

You also don't need to be part of a terrorist group to be a terrorist, most terror attacks are comitted by lone wolves or small groups of people with no affiliation to known terror groups, most terror groups will simply take responsibility for any and all attacks since it makes them look more powerful and far reaching then they actually are.

[TomToWin]

You also don't need to be part of a terrorist group to be a terrorist, most terror attacks are comitted by lone wolves or small groups of people with no affiliation to known terror groups, most terror groups will simply take responsibility for any and all attacks since it makes them look more powerful and far reaching then they actually are.

I think you will find that most terrorist attacks are in fact carried out by affiliated groups.

[Tom4784]

I think you will find that most terrorist attacks are in fact carried out by affiliated groups.

Not really, no.

[Maru]

Most of the mainstream media here are left-leaning. It's not really a question, but yeah some will deny there's a lean at all because they want to believe they get both sides. (Almost never the case). Fox News is an unusual outlier here, but a vast majority is in the center-left/left category. More left though after 2016 elections, and I think that's just because it's a continuation of the pull to the left over the past few decades. Though not sure with the UK because I've only come up onto DM/Sun's websites when searching other topics.. and so hard to judge their lean across the board... I wouldn't know the "lean" anyway on some of them, because I don't know enough about UK pop culture or politics, etc.

I think with right-leaning terrorists, like neo-Nazi, etc... I agree, they're terrorists. But most folk (here), their first real "acquaintance" with that term was from 9/11. So most associate terrorists with overseas actors... so generally it's a non-domestic term.

Though I agree wholly it is terrorism. However, most people care more about the charges and what classification they fall under in the criminal justice system, the nitty gritty so to speak, and so we'll tend to hear more on the crime's specifics rather than what umbrella term they fall under. Most "high profile" actors, at least locally here... they tend to go through mental health first to be evaluated and so there is usually that screening process. And the media, especially here the local media, they tend to be in favor of mental health story lines... if they're ethnic, it's to aid the "oh they were a victim of the system..." ... if they were white, it's to add to more of the general fear that young white man are growing increasingly unstable and are capable of crimes... though it does vary a bit depending on the spin and the notoriety of the incident. If it's a small fry, they'll exploit the race issue, if not, then they will maybe play it a little closer to the vest (locally anyway...)

[Withano]

Not really.I’d say many Muslim terrorists are stupid,frustrated and angry.ISIS are just as welcoming to those people.
All these organisations far right,far left and religious pray on idiots to join their cause.

I was lumping isis in with the far right yeah. Can't think of a modern far left equivalent, but I'm sure there is one somewhere.

[Kizzy]

Most of the mainstream media here are left-leaning. It's not really a question, but yeah some will deny there's a lean at all because they want to believe they get both sides. (Almost never the case). Fox News is an unusual outlier here, but a vast majority is in the center-left/left category. More left though after 2016 elections, and I think that's just because it's a continuation of the pull to the left over the past few decades. Though not sure with the UK because I've only come up onto DM/Sun's websites when searching other topics.. and so hard to judge their lean across the board... I wouldn't know the "lean" anyway on some of them, because I don't know enough about UK pop culture or politics, etc.

I think with right-leaning terrorists, like neo-Nazi, etc... I agree, they're terrorists. But most folk (here), their first real "acquaintance" with that term was from 9/11. So most associate terrorists with overseas actors... so generally it's a non-domestic term.

Though I agree wholly it is terrorism. However, most people care more about the charges and what classification they fall under in the criminal justice system, the nitty gritty so to speak, and so we'll tend to hear more on the crime's specifics rather than what umbrella term they fall under. Most "high profile" actors, at least locally here... they tend to go through mental health first to be evaluated and so there is usually that screening process. And the media, especially here the local media, they tend to be in favor of mental health story lines... if they're ethnic, it's to aid the "oh they were a victim of the system..." ... if they were white, it's to add to more of the general fear that young white man are growing increasingly unstable and are capable of crimes... though it does vary a bit depending on the spin and the notoriety of the incident. If it's a small fry, they'll exploit the race issue, if not, then they will maybe play it a little closer to the vest (locally anyway...)

No they are not...

[Marsh.]

No they are not...

American media is very left?

[Kizzy]

Right, well at least hey have Fox for balance. Our's in not left and even the left is centrist.

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/should-thomas-mair-be-considered-a-terrorist-jo-cox-murder

An interesting debate but for me Harker presented a better argument. I feel his viewpoint was more balanced.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No they are not...

they are from an American standpoint, ie the one Maru is making

[Crimson Dynamo]

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/national-action-neo-nazi-terrorist-court-labour-mp-murder-plan-machete-rosie-cooper-latest-a8274521.html

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons

alleged



/thread

[jaxie]

Media is pretty much my area of expertise, you aren't going to get far by trying to explain it to me.

The newspapers tailor their spin to their target audience, that's pretty much a fact which is why things like Right Wing terrorism won't get reported on as much as Islamic terrorism because Britain as a whole is very Right Wing at the moment, most of the target audiences that these papers aim for don't want to hear about white terrorists that aren't killing for their own twisted take on Islam which is why this isn't a bigger story.

Thomas Muir was a terrorist, his murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated and was meant to inspire fear in the people who wished to remain.



If what Thomas Muir did does not qualify him as a terrorist then people must have a very incorrect view on what terrorism is. The newspapers and people that do not call him a terrorist can only be doing so because his face did not fit the current image of what terrorists look like. It's the same in the US, can you remember that teenager that shot up a gospel church in response to the Black Lives Matter movement? That was terrorism but I don't think many elements of the media called it out as such because the shooter wasn't a muslim.

This isn't something new, look back at the UK in the 70/80's, the image of a terrorist in those days were the IRA and the media went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people. Any terrorist attacks not related to the IRA probably would not have got much traction as it would have if it was done by an IRA terrorist for the same reasons why reports on Extreme Right Wing terrorism isn't getting traction in favour of Islamic terrorism. The media needs it's boogeyman to scare it's readers and these days their boogeyman of choice are muslims.

All terrorism should be reported the same way, all terrorism is bad. It's irresponsible and rather disgusting for large parts of the media to ignore Extreme Right Wing terrorism or downplay it like they have because it doesn't suit their narrative.

Do you have a degree in media studies or something?

[user104658]

Just to add to this briefly, from what I've seen of the US media, it really isn't "left leaning" at all. It's essentially the "Democrat media" with only Fox leaning "Republican". The mainstream media in the US is pretty much dead centre, leaning slightly to either side on various issues. Fox is harder right / Republican and that gives the impression that the rest is "Left", but really what it is is "Left compared to Republican"... it's not in any meaningful way left of centre.

[bots]

Just to add some balance to this, the media take a very dim view of the BNP and its variants, they have many a time called out the behaviour of UKIP, all right wing motivated political organisations. They dont call ISIS attackers terrorists until they are sure that it is a terrorist event. One also has to consider the scale, and the frequency of potential attacks when considering it in the context of media attention. It's way to simplistic and actually incorrect to say that the media do not report like for like incidents consistently.

[Cherie]

Just to add some balance to this, the media take a very dim view of the BNP and its variants, they have many a time called out the behaviour of UKIP, all right wing motivated political organisations. They dont call ISIS attackers terrorists until they are sure that it is a terrorist event. One also has to consider the scale, and the frequency of potential attacks when considering it in the context of media attention. It's way to simplistic and actually incorrect to say that the media do not report like for like incidents consistently.

.

[Maru]

This graphic is scarily close to my reading habits :laugh:...

Except our local is pretty good though. We can get the basic news without feeling pulled as much emotionally either direction... (at least until it gets into the criminal justice stuff...)... except the Chron. Very left, but they do a good job of holding the local govt accountable.

https://i.imgur.com/L7FI5Vj.jpg

Just No. is me anytime I end up at Breitbart. I read a bit but then have to avert my eyes. I don't consider InfoWars to be news at all... Alex Jones reminds me too much of a 3AM infomercial guy, except he sells weird things like goat sperm that will make men's penises grow super strong or some other barely FDA approved cheap crap...

[Maru]

When it comes to right news in the US, you kind of have to go to the "unknown"... and a lot of folk don't regard them as "mainstream"... because atm, mainstream is only big enough for the northeast coast/California/DC bureaucrats... they don't regard Fox News very well either...

[Crimson Dynamo]

interesting graphic

the independent and the canary would be in out just no section

[Kizzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/should-thomas-mair-be-considered-a-terrorist-jo-cox-murder

An interesting debate but for me Harker presented a better argument. I feel his viewpoint was more balanced.

'Mair’s guidance came from inside his head. '

This is not true, his home was found to contain all manner of far right literature and subscribed to far right magazines/ online groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/21/jo-cox-suspect-collected-far-right-books-court-hears

[Crimson Dynamo]

the guardian link?


Hyper partisan liberal - questionable journalistic value


oh dear

[user104658]

the guardian link?


Hyper partisan liberal - questionable journalistic value


oh dear

It's a tabloid, I'd say basically all of them fall into that category (on either left or right).

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Dezzy;9932998]"Media is pretty much my area of expertise, you aren't going to get far by trying to explain it to me."

Nor, I'm afraid, will you get very far with me in claiming that ' Media is pretty much' your 'area of expertise' when the statements with which you follow up your claim are nothing more than 'PERSONAL OPINION' which is NOT supported by the FACTS of the matter under discussion.

"The newspapers tailor their spin to their target audience, that's pretty much a fact which is why things like Right Wing terrorism won't get reported on as much as Islamic terrorism because Britain as a whole is very Right Wing at the moment, most of the target audiences that these papers aim for don't want to hear about white terrorists that aren't killing for their own twisted take on Islam which is why this isn't a bigger story."

Right-Wing terrorism does NOT get reported as much as Islamic Terrorism by the media simply because acts of Right-Wing Terrorism are SIGNIFICANTLY less in number than acts of Islamic Terrorism - especially within the UK.

Even in the USA - where Far Right Extremist violence is far more prolific than it is here - Deaths due to Islamic Terrorist Acts outnumber deaths due to Far Right Extremist Terrorist Acts by a colossal 62 to 1 ratio - ONCE the 'manipulated' statistics of Left Wing Data Analysts are corrected.

"Thomas Muir was a terrorist, his murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated and was meant to inspire fear in the people who wished to remain."

The above is nothing more than YOUR Personal Opinion - an opinion which, again, is NOT validated by the facts of the matter.

Mair's horrific act WAS 'Politically Motivated' - carried out by him for his own twisted reasons because he DETESTED Jo Cox's politics but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Mair's motives included any intention to 'inspire fear in the people who wished to remain' - NONE whatsoever - and I challenge you to produce any to support your 'opinion'.

"If what Thomas Muir did does not qualify him as a terrorist then people must have a very incorrect view on what terrorism is. The newspapers and people that do not call him a terrorist can only be doing so because his face did not fit the current image of what terrorists look like."

There is a VAST difference between a murder being 'Politically Motivated' and being an 'Act of Terrorism', and as I already stated in my earlier post, apart from his act being a 'TERRIBLE' act because it caused 'Terror' by its very perpetration, Mair was NOT a 'terrorist' within the accepted definitions of the word.

It is also irrefutable that in spite of Mair’s subscription to Neo-Nazi, Far Right, and White Supremacist literature, he was NOT actually a MEMBER of any of these organisations.

It's the same in the US, can you remember that teenager that shot up a gospel church in response to the Black Lives Matter movement? That was terrorism but I don't think many elements of the media called it out as such because the shooter wasn't a muslim."

I'm sorry, but throughout your post, Dezzy, you are guilty of committing the same 'crime' of that which you accuse certain Media of; and that is, putting a 'spin' on the facts due to 'Personal Bias'.

SOME 'Personal Bias' may find its way into certain reporting by certain of the media, but any reluctance to call any murderer - mass or otherwise - 'a terrorist' on the part of the media in general, here or in the USA, has, I feel, more to do with the actual FACTS of the case than it has the 'Colour', Creed' or 'Nationality' or 'Culture' of the perpetrator.

"This isn't something new, look back at the UK in the 70/80's, the image of a terrorist in those days were the IRA and the media went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people. Any terrorist attacks not related to the IRA probably would not have got much traction as it would have if it was done by an IRA terrorist for the same reasons why reports on Extreme Right Wing terrorism isn't getting traction in favour of Islamic terrorism. The media needs it's boogeyman to scare it's readers and these days their boogeyman of choice are muslims."

I LIVED through that terrible period, and I can assure you, that NO MEDIA "went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people".

The blame for that catalogue of atrocities was laid firmly at the door of those culpable by both the British press AND the great British Public: the Terrorist Organisations responsible, mainly The IRA, because - just as with Islamic Terrorists now - THEY were the most prolific perpetrators.

Both the British Press AND the British Public had nothing but the greatest SYMPATHY for the 'Irish' people - unless my memory fails me - and just as NO ONE now who is reasonably sane and of average intelligence BLAMES all Muslims for Islamic Extremist terrorism, NO ONE then blamed the Irish people for the callous acts of the IRA.

"All terrorism should be reported the same way, all terrorism is bad. It's irresponsible and rather disgusting for large parts of the media to ignore Extreme Right Wing terrorism or downplay it like they have because it doesn't suit their narrative."[

I agree.

/QUOTE]

[Maru]

[QUOTE=Dezzy;9932998]"Media is pretty much my area of expertise, you aren't going to get far by trying to explain it to me."

Nor, I'm afraid, will you get very far with me in claiming that ' Media is pretty much' your 'area of expertise' when the statements with which you follow up your claim are nothing more than 'PERSONAL OPINION' which is NOT supported by the FACTS of the matter under discussion.

"The newspapers tailor their spin to their target audience, that's pretty much a fact which is why things like Right Wing terrorism won't get reported on as much as Islamic terrorism because Britain as a whole is very Right Wing at the moment, most of the target audiences that these papers aim for don't want to hear about white terrorists that aren't killing for their own twisted take on Islam which is why this isn't a bigger story."

Right-Wing terrorism does NOT get reported as much as Islamic Terrorism by the media simply because acts of Right-Wing Terrorism are SIGNIFICANTLY less in number than acts of Islamic Terrorism - especially within the UK.

Even in the USA - where Far Right Extremist violence is far more prolific than it is here - Deaths due to Islamic Terrorist Acts outnumber deaths due to Far Right Extremist Terrorist Acts by a colossal 62 to 1 ratio - ONCE the 'manipulated' statistics of Left Wing Data Analysts are corrected.

"Thomas Muir was a terrorist, his murder of Jo Cox was politically motivated and was meant to inspire fear in the people who wished to remain."

The above is nothing more than YOUR Personal Opinion - an opinion which, again, is NOT validated by the facts of the matter.

Mair's horrific act WAS 'Politically Motivated' - carried out by him for his own twisted reasons because he DETESTED Jo Cox's politics but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Mair's motives included any intention to 'inspire fear in the people who wished to remain' - NONE whatsoever - and I challenge you to produce any to support your 'opinion'.

"If what Thomas Muir did does not qualify him as a terrorist then people must have a very incorrect view on what terrorism is. The newspapers and people that do not call him a terrorist can only be doing so because his face did not fit the current image of what terrorists look like."

There is a VAST difference between a murder being 'Politically Motivated' and being an 'Act of Terrorism', and as I already stated in my earlier post, apart from his act being a 'TERRIBLE' act because it caused 'Terror' by its very perpetration, Mair was NOT a 'terrorist' within the accepted definitions of the word.

It is also irrefutable that in spite of Mair’s subscription to Neo-Nazi, Far Right, and White Supremacist literature, he was NOT actually a MEMBER of any of these organisations.

It's the same in the US, can you remember that teenager that shot up a gospel church in response to the Black Lives Matter movement? That was terrorism but I don't think many elements of the media called it out as such because the shooter wasn't a muslim."

I'm sorry, but throughout your post, Dezzy, you are guilty of committing the same 'crime' of that which you accuse certain Media of; and that is, putting a 'spin' on the facts due to 'Personal Bias'.

SOME 'Personal Bias' may find its way into certain reporting by certain of the media, but any reluctance to call any murderer - mass or otherwise - 'a terrorist' on the part of the media in general, here or in the USA, has, I feel, more to do with the actual FACTS of the case than it has the 'Colour', Creed' or 'Nationality' or 'Culture' of the perpetrator.

"This isn't something new, look back at the UK in the 70/80's, the image of a terrorist in those days were the IRA and the media went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people. Any terrorist attacks not related to the IRA probably would not have got much traction as it would have if it was done by an IRA terrorist for the same reasons why reports on Extreme Right Wing terrorism isn't getting traction in favour of Islamic terrorism. The media needs it's boogeyman to scare it's readers and these days their boogeyman of choice are muslims."

I LIVED through that terrible period, and I can assure you, that NO MEDIA "went in hard on trying to demonise Irish people".

The blame for that catalogue of atrocities was laid firmly at the door of those culpable by both the British press AND the great British Public: the Terrorist Organisations responsible, mainly The IRA, because - just as with Islamic Terrorists now - THEY were the most prolific perpetrators.

Both the British Press AND the British Public had nothing but the greatest SYMPATHY for the 'Irish' people - unless my memory fails me - and just as NO ONE now who is reasonably sane and of average intelligence BLAMES all Muslims for Islamic Extremist terrorism, NO ONE then blamed the Irish people for the callous acts of the IRA.

"All terrorism should be reported the same way, all terrorism is bad. It's irresponsible and rather disgusting for large parts of the media to ignore Extreme Right Wing terrorism or downplay it like they have because it doesn't suit their narrative."[

I agree.

/QUOTE]

:clap1:

[Maru]

the guardian link?


Hyper partisan liberal - questionable journalistic value


oh dear

I LoL'ed. I do sometimes read the Guardian though... different sources

:laugh:

[Brillopad]

Do you have a degree in media studies or something?

That would be a no then!

[Crimson Dynamo]

:joker:

[Kizzy]

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons

alleged



/thread


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

It's the motive that's alleged, he's been charged with the offence.

[Kizzy]

the guardian link?


Hyper partisan liberal - questionable journalistic value


oh dear

:joker:

And what would you call legitimate?