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

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.

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.

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

We all know that the Media have their own agendas.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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: "

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

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.

Thank you Brillo.

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.

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

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.

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.

Not really, no.

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...)

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.

No they are not...

American media is very left?

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-jo-cox-murder

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

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

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

alleged



/thread

Do you have a degree in media studies or something?

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.

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.

.

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...

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...

interesting graphic

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

'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/...ks-court-hears

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).

[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]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;9934577]:clap1:

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

:laugh: