is the Guardian racist?

[hatwoman]

because I'm struggling to find a decent explanation for todays pages 2-3: massive spread on Australia (death toll 15); one column down the side on Brazil (death toll in the 100s, 1000s missing.)

I wouldn't rule out racism, but I'd also finger the fact that rather more UK readers have relatives and friends in Australia that Brazil, and we gave stronger cultural links generally (much in the way that US stories get more coverage tha French or German ones) - we're more interested (though that's only a short term answer, the reason we're not interested in Brazil is partly because the news media have never bothered to build us a narrative).
Also as I understand it the Australian floods have built up in a predictable crescendo, so they've got all their resources in place, whilst Brazil has caught them in the hop (could be wrong about that though).

good points DP. It just makes me angry when you see such stark examples of the way we/the media/the uk seem to value lives differently - whatever the reason.

There are floods in Sri Lanka as well, 18 people killed and one million forced out of their homes.

I would think it is cos Australia doesn't normally get flooded.

Yes I would say the Guardian is racist. They do not give the same amount of coverage to racist attacks on whites compared to racist attacks on non whites. I would say they are anti white liberals/marxists.

huh??

Oh dear.

also, people in Brisane will have telephones and internet connections and speak English, same goes for the emergency services there, hence very accessible to our media

actually I've just checked their ws and Brazil is the top story.

Wasn't it because the extent of the Brazil disaster wasn't apparent until after the newspapers went to press? I think the first major loss of life was discovered in the early hours of Thursday morning. Its certainly the lead story on their website with Brisbane right down the page.

yes - it is top story on the website - (I checked too and that slightly ameliorates my feelings) but it is the nature of print versions that it's very easy to "measure" coverage. and, as I said, I found today's really stark. I really struggle with the idea that the editor either didn't notice or thought it was ok. I'm not sure which is worse.

Hatwoman, perhaps you could measure the column inches given to stories of white people being racially attacked in this country compared to stories about racist attacks on non whites.

Why would it be racist?

Brazil is fairly multi-racial as far as I know - European, Afro-carribean, indigenous Indian origin people, plus the rest. Australia's indigenous population is black aborigine, plus they have a large Asian population don't they?

You are assuming:

Australia = white
Brazil = non-white

I am not sure if it's the Guardian being racist....

Media always gives disproportionate attention to events or tragedies in English speaking countries.

Agree about the English speaking countries but is that because we have such strong links to them?

I just can't get my head around why this is racist in this case

Yes, it's simply because we can relate to them and normally have more cultural ties and interest in those countries.
So Newspapers etc. will report on them with greater focus than non-english speaking countries or non-traditional countries (for example France and Germany etc. would still get a large amount of focus.) because it's more likely to sell papers and interest their customers.

If you look at the timing..... The Guardian, like most nationals, will have been put to bed late last night when the scope and scale of the Brazilian flood was not yet fully understood. It's a common problem for printed media, unlike online/radio/tv media which is more instant. Listening to radio news today the numbers of dead started at 50-ish this morning and are now in the hundreds. Your Guardian tomorrow will reflect this.

donkey derby please don't accuse me of being racist. I am fully aware that Australia is not exclusively white (about 2-3% are aboriginal) and I am fully aware that Brazil is very diverse (tbh if I wasn't I would be out of a job).

I was, in my thread title, being a bit deliberately provocative. Underlying that deliberately simple and provocative question were more detailed and legitimate questions that I often have concerning the way the media covers events in a variety of countries: does the media concern itself more with events that affect white people and/or people with whom we have some form of historical or cultural or other connections? Do our media reflect a view of the world that is somehow skewed? Is it a failure in their attempts to be objective? Or perhaps they lay no claim to being objective? And is any of this indicative of a form of racism?

It's just that that wouldn't have made a very snappy title.

Then don't suggest the Guardian is racist just to get a snappy title.

I think that timing explanation is the correct one here TBH.

I do notice the effect that this OP was about - I just don't think this is necessarily a good example.

When they say things like "Floods in x, one person from nottingham missing, oh yes and by the way 10000000 locals dead" it always leaves me . That they assume that people in the UK will care more about one person from the UK than 10000000 people from elsewhere. And if they can't find a UK person they radiate out across europe, giving them more weight than the 10000000 people killed. Thinking things like floods in india.

Oh I don't think the effect is because of racism, mind, but more because of tribalism/localness (is that a word?).

If a black person from the UK was caught up in a flood in india they'd still get stacks more coverage than the vast numbers of indian men women and children caught up in it. It's because of where people are from, not because of their colour/race.

of course the guardian is NOT racist? how can you even suggest that without mentioning biggoted publications like the sun, the daily mail, the star, the express and every other tabloid which tries to push its racial diatribe on us every single day! the ignorance on these forums absolutely astounds me at times!

Rach, I read the thread title and thought 'I very much doubt it' and I also agree with Donkey. Richard Desmond/Rupert Maxwell on the other hand...