Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9932867)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9932894)

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: "

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9932931)

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

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9932450)

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.

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9932945)

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

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9932867)

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.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9933000)

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.

Originally Posted by TomToWin (Post 9933025)

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

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9932945)

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.

Originally Posted by Maru (Post 9933044)

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...)

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9933298)

No they are not...

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9933298)

No they are not...

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9932393)

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/u...-a8274521.html

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9932998)

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.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9933806)

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9933628)

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.