Both have printed reports about the case of Keith Brown and his manslaughter by neighbour Mr Khan that give the subtle undertext of 'the victim deserved to die, he was a violent racist':
'Times':"Like most neighbourhood feuds, it boiled down to a row over boundaries. Mr Brown accused Khan of putting a fence on his land and said that the conservatory blocked his light. Mr Brown was a dangerous man with convictions for what Judge Simon Tonking called “extreme violence” in his twenties. In 2000 he was convicted for punching a man in the face."This kind of utterly biased reporting can only serve to fuel anger and resentment, and help to encourage the view among voters that the 'establishment' is prepared to use any tactic to persuade voters not to vote for the BNP, even to misrepresenting a recent murder trial.
'Mail':"Keith Brown, the court heard, was not a 'white martyr,' but had a history of violence. The man in the dock, on the other hand, was a community leader who had never been in trouble before. He also happened to be Mr Brown's next-door neighbour and a Muslim."
There are no comments (yet) on the 'Mail' piece (their Turing code system seems to be broken as valid codes are not accepted) but the comments on the 'Times' piece show a great deal of anger at the slanted reporting.
This is irresponsible journalism.
I dunno. Could be like Marc Anthony's speech where he keeps accidentally referring to Caesar's will until - gosh darn it! - he has to read the whole thing including the generous bequests to the plebs.
Whatever the apparent editorial tone, two national newspapers have covered a case the liberal establishment would rather sink down the memory hole.
"Could be like Marc Anthony's speech where he keeps accidentally referring to Caesar's will until - gosh darn it! - he has to read the whole thing including the generous bequests to the plebs."
Heh! Never thought of it that way...
Post a Comment