The BBC’s policy of 'all Anthony Walker all the time' continues today, but there’s a certain sadness at the heart of it. Try as they might, there’s one thing preventing this becoming the next Stephen Lawrence case. Them Scousers have gone and busted the killers. What’s a bunch of race-hustling nogoodniks to do ?
They’ve got it! Claim that the lack of any real grounds for complaint is proof that their race hutling worked – also known as the ‘elephants painting their nails pink to hide in cherry trees’ strategy.
Still, the BBC must be feeling the heat. They’ve posted another one of their ‘Us ? Liberal ?’ articles. It really is a classic. Apparently, the BBC decides how much coverage to give stories depending on the views of the CPS and the police. Surely, such a policy allows the government to manipulate the reporting of crime ? Certainly, an analysis of the ‘raw’ statistics suggests that the real number of racial attacks is somewhat different from what certain people would have you believe. So much for that ‘challenging authority’ that the BBC is so proud of when the War on Terror is discussed.
Also, the BBC implies that most murder stories aren’t newsworthy because the killer is known to the victim, but that the racially-motivated slaying of a white guy wasn’t reported because that was the day Danielle Jones’ uncle was convicted of her slaying. A-huh. Given that the BBC’s annual income from the TV licence is £3 billion – just how much would they need to be able to cover more than one story per day ? Really – just give us a working figure here.
Besides, they point out that they don’t just downplay attacks against whites – they also shaft East Asians. Did we ever doubt it ? The only way you’re going to see slant eyes on BBC primetime is if they remake ‘Tenko’. It’s the Christopher Yates defence all over again. The BBC can’t discriminate against whites because it also discriminates against East Asians as well.
The central point though is the one the BBC will not address. The BBC suggests that it is self-evident that crimes classed as ‘racial’ should receive more coverage than those that are not. But why ? Isn't this, in and of itself, an inherently political position ?
We’re back to that thing, the metacontext, the unstated assumptions that underpin BBC reporting. Whatever attempts the BBC makes at ‘impartiality’ in reporting individual stories, it’s still a prisoner of the Liberal worldview. In the BBC bubble there’s no one around to say ‘hang on a minute, surely a crime is a crime is a crime’. This is hardly some outlandish view. I’m guessing that half the country (at least) feels that way – it’s just none of them have jobs at the BBC. That’s why it’s so nails-down-a-blackboard to hear these people preach the benefits of diversity.