'Foreign' criminals and the BBC

Note: This article is not intended to make a normative point about the values of multiculturalism, immigration or anything similar. It merely points out what might be an interesting inconsistency in BBC reporting between TV and online

It is often alleged that the BBC has a left-wing, vegetarian, liberal agenda. To some extent this is true. In my opinion, their attempt to remain as impartial as possible sometimes leads to misleading reporting. This is often separate from a left-wing bias - I sometimes wonder how much effort they have to go to in order to find an opinion that deviates from the mainstream; all in the name of 'impartiality'. I believe the news would be better reported if minority views, such as that climate change (of the anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic sort) is not happening, were ignored. Providing them with a platform gives them a legitimacy that their lack of evidenciary credibility does not deserve.

The topic I will discuss today is not necessarily misleading. I actually haven't made my mind up about whether it is or isn't. It is, however, pretty interesting.

Today the BBC reported that a man was 'arrested as he made his way to behead a soldier'. It turned out that the man was Muslim. Now, the TV version of BBC news announced in its introductory sentence that the man was Muslim. The article (linked above) does no such thing. If one were to simply read the blurb on the BBC News homepage, which I consider to be the equivalent of the introductory sentence to a TV news story, the man's religion would not be apparent. Now, I am not saying that his religion is important, or that the BBC is being 'soft' on Islamic fundamentalism. I am just pointing out a difference.

This same difference in reporting occured when a gang of 4 Polish nationals assaulted and beat up a lecturer in late 2014. The TV news immediately called them Polish, whilst the first iteration of the article I read didn't discuss their nationality. A subsequent BBC article mentions just once that they were 'Polish nationals' but again, this is not in the story's blurb. Whilst it would have been clear to any British person that their names were Eastern European, their precise nationality would have been less obvious.

This also contrasts with the reporting of the story by other newspapers, as (perhaps unsurprisingly) the Telegraph, Evening Standard and Daily Mail all referred to the men as Polish in the title. 

So why this difference? Well, with a sample size of two I cannot really say with any confidence that there is a difference. However, a brief google shows that younger (and perhaps more impressionable) individuals use online news sources whilst older (and perhaps less impressionable) demographics tend to dominate TV news. An alternative explanation would say that younger people are less xenophobic and so have complained or would complain if the news they read was perceived to be racist. However, as they don't watch TV news, they don't complain about that.

Is any of this relevant? Are my explanations plausible? Who knows. Maybe. Perhaps you can comment if you have an opinion...