Post by ascendinglark on Mar 19, 2007 23:57:29 GMT
Sean Bell was an unarmed black man who was shot to death by NYC cops on the morning of his wedding. It's a huge story here in New York - racial tensions are high and the black community here is demanding the cops be charged with murder. They accuse cops of killing him purely because he was black - even though of the 5 officers involved, 3 were black (including the one who initiated the firing) and only one was white. Here is the BBC's biased report of the latest developments:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6467801.stm
Compare this with what actually happened (even this version is watered down)
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4801932
I just find the whole way the BBC sums up "what happened" to be entirely skewed and obviously worded to stir up outrage against these "racist cops":
Now this gives quite a different picture to what really happened, that there was talk of a gun inside the club, that a drunken Sean Bell and his friends got into a fight with some pimp outside, that one of them talked about coming back to "f*ck him up", that one of them then said "Yo, go get my gun", and when they got into their car, an undercover officer identified himself as a cop, told them to stop, and that's when Sean Bell floored his car, struck the officer, reversed, came back and then "hit an unmarked police vehicle". At this point, the man in the front passenger seat "reached for his waistband"
Notice that the details the BBC leaves out make all the difference in the way the incident is perceived.. The way the BBC tells it, the cops are vicious psychos who went ballistic when one of their cars got damaged.
Now - the BBC gave a mention to the fact that Bell used his car as a weapon against the cop in their first report of the case back on November 26th last year. I say "token" because all they can bring themselves to admit is that Bell "struck an undercover officer on the shin", while over here it was widely reported that he tried to run the officer down. Here's the BBC report from back then:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184948.stm
But of course, the fact that Bell deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon against an officer is inconvenient to the BBC's agenda of racial pandering, so they very conveniently leave it out in all future reports - the incident becomes one in which Bell was murdered after he merely "struck an unmarked police vehicle".
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186808.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6189442.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6201120.stm
I thought this blatant misrepresentation of a racially charged case worth a mention on a forum which deals with BBC bias, because it's clear to me that they have set out to present this case in a way which is designed to cause maximum racial indignance. The following report is an excellent example...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6202717.stm
First of all, the "white" officer in question, Mike Oliver, is of Syrian-Lebanese descent, a fact which is widely known here and which can't possibly have escaped the attention of the BBC.
Here you can see a picture of Oliver for yourself - this is the man the BBC sees fit to describe as "white", for reasons I can only assume have to do with furthering their leftist agenda of painting Western countries as brutal racist police states.
I know this story isn't going to be big news in Britain and that they have to keep their coverage short and "to the point" - but the words they use "to the point" are what matter, and which betray the BBC's anti-white, racial rabble-rousing agenda. The people who write this stuff obviously get a kick out of "exposing white racism" and perpetuating the cults of victimhood and racial paranoia which keep minorities enchained in a separatist, tribal mentality, and thus perpetually disadvantaged and disenfranchised in society. Leftists need people to live in this mental state, because it justifies their existence. Anyone in this day and age who doesn't believe that the left has a vested interest in producing and perpetuating victims and victimhood, is surely deranged.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6467801.stm
Compare this with what actually happened (even this version is watered down)
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4801932
I just find the whole way the BBC sums up "what happened" to be entirely skewed and obviously worded to stir up outrage against these "racist cops":
The policemen have said that Mr Bell's car hit an unmarked police vehicle and the officers thought someone in his car was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.
Now this gives quite a different picture to what really happened, that there was talk of a gun inside the club, that a drunken Sean Bell and his friends got into a fight with some pimp outside, that one of them talked about coming back to "f*ck him up", that one of them then said "Yo, go get my gun", and when they got into their car, an undercover officer identified himself as a cop, told them to stop, and that's when Sean Bell floored his car, struck the officer, reversed, came back and then "hit an unmarked police vehicle". At this point, the man in the front passenger seat "reached for his waistband"
Notice that the details the BBC leaves out make all the difference in the way the incident is perceived.. The way the BBC tells it, the cops are vicious psychos who went ballistic when one of their cars got damaged.
Now - the BBC gave a mention to the fact that Bell used his car as a weapon against the cop in their first report of the case back on November 26th last year. I say "token" because all they can bring themselves to admit is that Bell "struck an undercover officer on the shin", while over here it was widely reported that he tried to run the officer down. Here's the BBC report from back then:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184948.stm
But of course, the fact that Bell deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon against an officer is inconvenient to the BBC's agenda of racial pandering, so they very conveniently leave it out in all future reports - the incident becomes one in which Bell was murdered after he merely "struck an unmarked police vehicle".
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186808.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6189442.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6201120.stm
I thought this blatant misrepresentation of a racially charged case worth a mention on a forum which deals with BBC bias, because it's clear to me that they have set out to present this case in a way which is designed to cause maximum racial indignance. The following report is an excellent example...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6202717.stm
The majority of officers at the scene were black, but one white officer was responsible for firing 31 of the bullets discharged
First of all, the "white" officer in question, Mike Oliver, is of Syrian-Lebanese descent, a fact which is widely known here and which can't possibly have escaped the attention of the BBC.
Here you can see a picture of Oliver for yourself - this is the man the BBC sees fit to describe as "white", for reasons I can only assume have to do with furthering their leftist agenda of painting Western countries as brutal racist police states.
I know this story isn't going to be big news in Britain and that they have to keep their coverage short and "to the point" - but the words they use "to the point" are what matter, and which betray the BBC's anti-white, racial rabble-rousing agenda. The people who write this stuff obviously get a kick out of "exposing white racism" and perpetuating the cults of victimhood and racial paranoia which keep minorities enchained in a separatist, tribal mentality, and thus perpetually disadvantaged and disenfranchised in society. Leftists need people to live in this mental state, because it justifies their existence. Anyone in this day and age who doesn't believe that the left has a vested interest in producing and perpetuating victims and victimhood, is surely deranged.
)