Racism in the news

[MycroftSholmes]

Anyone think that if the rail guard who saved people on the train stabbing incident was not called “Samir Zitouni” today that the daily mail would probably have had him featured on the front page?

nowehere to be seen and instead a bunch of scraped up stories about asylum seekers

shocking

Agree! It’s shocking that there aren’t more headlines about him. He’s a true hero who didn’t hesitate to step in and in doing so, sustained life threatening injuries. He’s an immigrant, muslim & has a non-English name. He’s everything the ‘we want our country back’ white British 1st brigade of anti-immigrant, racist politically illiterate followers of Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe and right wing press hate and want to deport.

He's a hero. He is more than wanted and welcome. What an amazing man.

The Daily Mail is not the only source of news though. I don't read the papers but, by coincidence, have caught the headlines on more than one TV channel today and have seen him on all of them

I think Rachel has grabbed all the headlines .

Agree. He’s been mentioned loads, quite rightly. It’s not like anyone thinks the Mail is great, is it? I’m sure they- and the rest- lead with whatever sells papers.

He was all over the news. Do you ever watch it?
And I am assuming he will be in all the papers today. Maybe wait and see before jumping on the bandwagon.

My point is the daily mail specifically is biased and if he was white I’m sure he’d have been “our lad the hero” etc.

It’s specifically about the daily mail. I’m not in a bandwagon I’m driving it and hoping others jump on. I like to read a range of newspaper headlines each day and see who chooses to feature which stories.

the gaps in reporting are as interesting sometimes as what is featured.

suggest others try the same hobby as it opens your eyes to press editorial biases

I have just posted elsewhere that the truth has become inconvenient to the preferred narrative of both left and right.

"DM reader" is often used by the left to insult whoever they disagree with. Are you are reader yourself and is that why you are concerned about what is on their front page today? I'm not personally and I dont usually monitor the front pages of newspapers these days other than the one I actually read.

The other thing to mention is that the Today programme on Radio 4 always lists the leads of each newspaper each day. There are seldom many the same.

Surely, most people are aware of editorial bias?
Most people understand the nature of the Daily Mail? !

I always think that's interesting. Sometimes it's as if they're reporting from different countries.

I see the Telegraph is leading with the NYC elections. The bravery of that guy was reported a day ago already. Old news.

There's obvious differences in papers as to what the readers are interested in or think important. The Guardian for example would lead on something Gaza related as its readers find that of major importance. The Telegrah would generally focus on something else as its reader dont presumably feel Gaza is hugely relevant to the UK.

I suppose papers want a scoop or a different slant on a story. Tbf that brave man was covered yesterday at length.

True. Yes, Samir Zitouni's story was headline news on the bulletins i watched. His bravery has certainly been widely acknowledged, quite rightly.

EVERY private sector media outlet has no interest in reporting news. None.
ALL they exist to do is make money. That's it. They are a business.
They want newspaper sales and mouse clicks.
That is it.
They print or post whatever they think will make them the most money.
Daily Mail readers won't pay money to read about people called Samir being heroic, so they dont print it.
Sad perhaps but that is what life is.
If media wanted to report news the headline would be "snow forecast in Scotland on sunday" but they want clicks so the headline is "exact date snowstorm to hit UK revealed!"
Etc
Once you start thinking that way you realise they aren't actually racist, they just want money from racists.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15256713/Tributes-brave-rail-worker-Huntingdon-knife-rampage.html
I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail, but in the interest of balance, here's an article. A nice one

I’m glad to see this and whilst I do agree it’s a nice article about him, I know that if the attacker and hero were reversed there would be a headline about / multiple references to his religion and immigrant background. When this person is the hero it’s simply omitted and skimmed over. This is the imbalance and the racism, it’s sometimes the unsaid things too.

Oh I completely agree, and I don't doubt it.
I was just countering @snowlaser 's claim that the DM didn't print the story.
It's important to have facts.

I don't read newspapers because they are so biased - they are of no value to me (or anyone I suspect). So I don't know precisely what stories the Daily Mail did or didn't print on every single page.

The point the OP was making is that this heroic act didn't appear on the FRONT PAGE - but if he had been the perpetrator then he WOULD have been on the front page to enrage the racists and make them buy the newspaper.

If it makes you happier I hereby amend my comment to:

"Daily Mail readers won't pay money to read about people called Samir being heroic, so they dont print it on the cover."

It's not about making me "happier".
It's not about me at all.
I actually agree with your points - in the main, and the points @Circularmadness made.
My point was just that the DM did print the story, and it was positive. That doesn't mean to say that they don't have an editorial policy which generally blames, marginalises and demonises ethic minorities, I think they do. I've just checked the headline now and it's about an escaped prisoner who is an asylum seeker.
I think they do focus on this kind of story. However, I'm glad they did cover the bravery of Samir Zitouni. As they should!

Wow what a great debate and discussion as I was hoping these would be the sort of more nuanced ideas we could discuss. The particular story in the press I mentioned is not the point, it is more about the way media work to essentially reinforce reader bias and siloes - with the result of separating us and keep us polarised.

I sympathise with the poster above saying they don’t read newspapers any more or the person who said they just look at one (it takes time to read more than one!) but it is worth reading the opposing viewpoints and noticing what is missing from coverage or emphasised. I think it is a real eye opener to see the way a different news story is treated by the various papers and websites.

if you’re really interested in power then read the FT, for the left wing urbanite the guardian, then the traditional centrist to conservative -the times, and to right the daily mail. There are now many more niche places to get the news too.

if others above interested i would also be interested to see any other good examples of this issue of just reinforcing readers world view, and reinforcing societal divisions.

it is something I’m wondering how to break out of as the way media is funded does mean business models create this siloing reinforcing bias.

Finally, to the person above about whether am I one of a tribe- I’d say the reason I find this interesting is that my politics are really all over the spectrum which has made me look across a range of news.

If we wanted a spread of the news and opinion we would all just read The Week. Have you tried it? It may solve your problem.

I find the Guardian highly irritating. Why would I be interested in what the Guardian view on something is? Few people read it. I dont have all day to read personal attacks on people whose politics the editor happens to disagree with.

Any decent newspaper should give balance generally and their own slant in the opinion section. The Telegraph used to do this well although standards are slipping.

Nowadays people dont rely on newspapers for their world view. You seem to start from the presumption that they do and have extrapolated from there.

Well they probably did the day before.