BBC's disgraceful coverage of Duke rape case (USA)

[ascendinglark]

This feels like a continuation to my thread about the BBC's disgustingly skewed coverage of the Sean Bell shooting in New York. Once again, we have a racially charged case full of explosive details, and once again the BBC's leftist goons have, apparently, decided to omit the most relevant details in an obvious bid to make a point about "racist white America".

For those who haven't heard of the case, a quick scan of the Wikipedia entry provides a good grounding. Pay particular attention to the full extent of the lies told by Magnum and the inconsistencies in her story. Basically, the accusation was about as maliciously false as it's possible to get:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal

Now compare this with the BBC's representation of the case:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6546859.stm

First of all, I was struck by the way they describe the incident as:

a sex abuse case whose racist overtones had shocked America.

That is a gross misrepresentation. The "racist overtones" hardly "shocked America". In fact, the likelyhood that the accusations were false became apparent very early in the case. What really shocked America, and what the BBC point blank refuses to report, was the way the case was prosecuted by District Attorney Mike Nifong - his cover ups, his lies and his obvious motives for prosecuting such a non-case so aggressively. In short, the guy was up for reelection against a black candidate and this was his way of securing the black vote.

www.slate.com/id/2140844/

It was one of the most disgraceful examples of racial pandering America has ever seen, not that you'd know from reading the BBC coverage. Heck, they can't even be bothered to get their photo captions right. In the story I first linked to, they have a picture of DA Mike Nifong with the caption: "Mr Cooper attacked the "tragic rush to accuse" in the case". But I guess when you're falling over youself to make another bogus point about white racism, who cares about basic journalistic accuracy?

Now on to the meat and potatoes of their bias:

But the charges have been dropped because of insufficient evidence that an attack had taken place.

Now, whoever wrote this account knows damn well that this isn't the full story at all, not by a long shot. The charges were dropped because it became apparent that the "evidence" against the team was all fabricated, NOT that they were dropped because there was "insufficient" evidence. The way the BBC reports it, anyone new to the case would be led to believe that those evil white racist rich kids only "got away with it" because the lack of evidence made it a case of her word against theirs. In fact, to anyone following the case in the US, it was 100% plain that no crime took place at all and that it was all a lie. This was pointed out by the press, commentators and bloggers of the right AND left, as well as countless black commentators, very early on. Everyone it seems, except the BBC, who is quite obviously using this as another springboard into a dog-eared rant against "white privilege".

I was especially angered by this quote:

The collapse of the case will lead to further dismay and soul searching, our correspondent says

Once again, it is perfectly clear to me that the BBC wishes to inform its readers that this story is a story about guilty, over-privileged white racists getting away with rape. They're insinuating that this is another case of injustice against blacks which will result in great pain for the black community, and the stereotypical "soul searching". The image they're trying to evoke is one of the "collective soul" of the black community "in pain" from yet another attack on black people. Am I reading between the lines too much? Maybe, but remember I've grown up with this style of pandering journalism from the leftist press in America. I KNOW what they mean by certain language, everybody does. But the difference in this case is that in America, even the leftist press quickly labeled this a "no-go" and left the pandering at home. Not so the BBC, it seems.

Of course, towards the end of the article, they give a quick nod and a wink to reality and at least represent the disgrace that is the Duke rape case a little, but there is no excusing their representation of it overall. Once again, it's the details the BBC leave out which are most telling.

[Teddy Bear]

I see exactly what you mean AL, and you've done a great job at presenting this travesty.
As usual the BBC has little concern for truth or facts, just exerting the power and spin that their position allows them to. I know eventually it will bite them in the ass, I just hope it's sooner than later.

[steevo]

Yeah, hopefully sooner or later here in the states.

As problems in the case became obvious only a handful who could personally gain from this were pushing the race card, and our NY Times etc. If there was and is any overtones within the public at large it's the realization of racism against the white innocent defendants.

You called it, definitely BBC wishful thinking for propaganda. I believe, with this case as cut and dry as is now known, many of those who take responsibility serious in the black community will be disgusted at this young woman. Such blatant lies pandering to political correctness and prejudice, calloused toward injustice against 'bad white guys' and abusing the system, will be seen for what it is: a perverse example not serving to further good fighting true racism but... motivated by the very opposite.

This may end up a blessing in disguise if you know what I mean; it is a powerful lesson. And contrary to that of the BBC

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC will pursue or bend any story if they can present the US as 'The Great Satan'. This is their main agenda there. It suits their EU agenda as well as that of their Muslim audience. You can be sure too, if the alleged rapists were Muslims they would have run this story far differently.

[bobsmith9999]

You know, I’ve read quite a bit of posts recently by white people saying that Imus was only fired for what he said because he was white, and also I’ve heard people try to somehow link this Imus story to the January Christian/Newsome murder (http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-racism-hush-crimes.html). Frankly, I don't know what all you people are talking about! You seem to think that somehow it’s racist for white people to actually get fired for saying racist things! Black people have had it way worse than that for a long time! They had to be slaves for a long time and are still suffering terribly because of it. Also, women have been mistreated throughout history. So because their ancestors were mistreated they should be treated better than the REAL enemy, which is the WHITE MAN!

If it were published all over the internet and on major radio stations that Black people had tortured and murdered two white people, then that would make Blacks as a whole look bad, which is completely untrue! Similarly, if people blamed the rape victim Black girl in the Duke rape case for "lying" about being raped (though it has been shown that women almost never lie about being raped) it would make Black women look bad. But if our society keeps trying to make Blacks and women look bad, how are they ever going to be equal?

I’m a white male and I’ve realized this! How long it is going to take before the rest of you catch on??? It’s the WHITE MEN that are the cause of all our country’s problems, and therefore it makes complete sense for Imus to be fired! Finally, a step in the right direction!

[steevo]

I don't know of people saying Imus was fired because he's white tho I don't doubt some will believe that. Imus for me is a different story with regards to the circumstances and reactions from what took place at Duke. What we've discussed here is this specific case, it obvious outcome, and the BBC's angle. Period. You're right in that you don't know what we are talking about. You've got problems.

This woman did lie. That's fact in the face of overwhelming evidence. 3 innocent young men who happen to be white could have had their lives destroyed. If any damage in race relations blame the girl, the prosecutor, black charlatan leaders, and a left-wing media bent on propaganda. If you do not want to believe that then you don't want to believe objective reality. Sorry to disturb your self-righteous guilt but there was no brutal attack and no white racism. End of story and that is our point.

[Teddy Bear]

I don't know what colour you are bob, and it doesn't make a lot of difference here. What matters is the logic and reason of your statements. If you are white you are clearly self-hating, and you omitted a very important piece of your 'racist' puzzle. It was WHITE MEN who ended slavery.

There are also BLACK men today who are still engaged in enslaving other BLACK men and women, and far worse than that.

It's ignorance and stupidity that is the cause of the problems in our country and society, not the colour of one's skin. You should be more concerned about that, and be careful not to perpetuate it in yourself.

[ascendinglark]

Bob needs to put down the crack pipe. He's obviously not white like he claims, just someone who thinks his incoherent anti-white tirade will hold more water if it appears to come "from the horses mouth" so to speak. Not that it matters - whether he's black or white, he sure as hell is good at spewing irrational leftist b*llsh*t.

A little home truth for him:

Blacks in Africa had been enslaved by both Africans and Arabs for more than a thousand years before the white man even set foot in Africa. Tribes like the Ashanti would roam the continent and steal men, women and children for sale in Africa's huge slave trade. Without anything to stop it, this trade would have continued at the same scale forever. So what stopped it?

Eventually, it would be Capitalism, in both its economic and political sense. Economically, the Industrial Revolution would make slavery obsolete. Slave labor is horribly inefficient and unreliable. The Enlightenment in the second half of 18th Century Britain saw the beginnings of technology, which exploded in the 19th and spread like wildfire to America. Politically and philosophically, this new era of science and reason brought with it the idea that man has an inalienable right to his own life and mind. This was the real birth of freedom and liberty, sentiments which, along with technological and economic considerations, ended slavery, a practice which had been widespread in every corner of the globe since the dawn of civilization. If you wish to declare "the white man" as your enemy, then it's only fair that you be made to consider just what it is that "the white man" (really: European and American culture) has given you.