Sarah Everard

[Binos]

9 hours ago, highlandcowden said:

So was this gypsy lassie British?if she was,fair point.otherwise,why would the British media pay a huge amount of attention to a missing foreign national in aforeign country?did you follow the Portuguese media at the time&did they concentrate on "ideal" Maddy rather than the gypsy lass?

Don't mind him, he talks shite

[throbber]

6 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Wayne Couzens has pleaded guilty to indecent exposure, two counts of which were at a drive through McDonalds.

Including the one a few days before he went on to commit murder.

[Satoshi]

13 hours ago, highlandcowden said:

So was this gypsy lassie British?if she was,fair point.otherwise,why would the British media pay a huge amount of attention to a missing foreign national in aforeign country?did you follow the Portuguese media at the time&did they concentrate on "ideal" Maddy rather than the gypsy lass?

No, she wasn't. And the media around the world ignored her (Maddie got plenty of non British press attention).

Shannon Matthews was British, around the same time, and got far less media attention. And the reasons why are obvious, they relate to the background of the victim, not the particulars of the case.

It's something that happens so often, is clearly happening in this case, and needs to be called out each time.

13 hours ago, hk blues said:

I'm not even sure if it's even  about that - the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance were more than unusual - disappearing without trace in a foreign country whilst her parents were guzzling wine with friends is surely a story and a half. 

I think folk are not seeing the wood for the trees here.

You're trying to fit it post event, again it won't be too difficult to find similar (or even more interesting) cases that do not get anywhere near the same level of attention.

Maddie got attention because newspapers (probably rightly) cottoned on that her and her family will elicit more empathy / interest than other victims. A similar thing happened (around the same time I think) when the brother of a soap star was stabbed to death in London. It got far more attention than every other knife crime that year because he was wealthy and white. In the weeks after they even tried to cover other stabbings to create some thread narrative but it's obvious they cared far less about the mostly poor black kids that were getting stabbed.

12 hours ago, highlandcowden said:

Absolutely

Far from only being interested in Maddie because of her background,the media were delighted to stick it to the parents because of this

It's all part of the story, her disappearance got far more attention than any other missing child for decades.

Now, you can believe this is down to the particulars of the case, but that theory falls down when you look at how quick the media reaction was (before the particulars were known) and how it endures long afterwards.

There is a well known, and even well commented on, media bias with regards to certain victims who fit idealised views of class and ethnicity. It happened in that case, it's happened in others (including Sarah Everard), and it will keep happening. And it doesn't just apply to individual victims, we all know that natural disasters in the US, Australia or New Zealand will get far more attention / sympathy than a more serious incident closer to the UK in somewhere like North Africa or Turkey.

You can call it out without having a go at the victims, who are as blameless and uninvolved as any other victims.

[dundeefc1783]

Another thread ruined with his rambling shite. 

[hk blues]

5 hours ago, Satoshi said:

No, she wasn't. And the media around the world ignored her (Maddie got plenty of non British press attention).

Shannon Matthews was British, around the same time, and got far less media attention. And the reasons why are obvious, they relate to the background of the victim, not the particulars of the case.

It's something that happens so often, is clearly happening in this case, and needs to be called out each time.

You're trying to fit it post event, again it won't be too difficult to find similar (or even more interesting) cases that do not get anywhere near the same level of attention.

Maddie got attention because newspapers (probably rightly) cottoned on that her and her family will elicit more empathy / interest than other victims. A similar thing happened (around the same time I think) when the brother of a soap star was stabbed to death in London. It got far more attention than every other knife crime that year because he was wealthy and white. In the weeks after they even tried to cover other stabbings to create some thread narrative but it's obvious they cared far less about the mostly poor black kids that were getting stabbed.

It's all part of the story, her disappearance got far more attention than any other missing child for decades.

Now, you can believe this is down to the particulars of the case, but that theory falls down when you look at how quick the media reaction was (before the particulars were known) and how it endures long afterwards.

There is a well known, and even well commented on, media bias with regards to certain victims who fit idealised views of class and ethnicity. It happened in that case, it's happened in others (including Sarah Everard), and it will keep happening. And it doesn't just apply to individual victims, we all know that natural disasters in the US, Australia or New Zealand will get far more attention / sympathy than a more serious incident closer to the UK in somewhere like North Africa or Turkey.

You can call it out without having a go at the victims, who are as blameless and uninvolved as any other victims.

Basically, you're choosing to view every single example through your prejudice.  

If we take the soap star's brother example as a case in point (I've no recollection of the case) - your wild take is that the case attracted attention solely because he was white and wealthy and NOT because his sister was a soap star. As I said, a wild take. 

[Satoshi]

21 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Basically, you're choosing to view every single example through your prejudice.  

If we take the soap star's brother example as a case in point (I've no recollection of the case) - your wild take is that the case attracted attention solely because he was white and wealthy and NOT because his sister was a soap star. As I said, a wild take. 

Not at all, there is ample evidence and coverage on the phenomenon of the ideal victim and how it impacts media coverage. There are countless scholarly articles on it and clear evidence it has existed in many fields, throughout history.

Nobody thinks Rosa Parks was the first person to refuse to give up her seat on a bus during segregation, she was chosen to be the face of the moment because she was palatable than those who came before her.

That actually wasnt my take, he attracted extra attention because of all three factors. He wasn't a public figure at all, and his sister was a minor celebrity at best.

This isn't something that is confined to the UK, it exists throughout the world. If two people go missing in Vietnam, one is part of the wealthy and one is not - who gets more attention? The poor person would probably get zero attention.

The Wikipedia entry of missing people in Malaysia contains four pages of famous cases - two are white people (Jim Thomson the one I knew of) and the other two more recent are connected political cases.

You could have countless examples of this, your case will certainly get more attention if you are wealthy and white than if you are neither. It's a statement that surely cannot reasonably be disputed.

[hk blues]

5 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

That actually wasnt my take, he attracted extra attention because of all three factors. He wasn't a public figure at all, and his sister was a minor celebrity at best.

His public standing is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.  Her celebrity standing is of little relevance either - just by virtue of being a celebrity of any kind is already enough to make her brother's killing newsworthy.  

You have absolutely no way of knowing what weighting the three factors you now mention had (you conveniently ignored the most relevant one 1st time around) on the newsworthiness of the story but I'd say the sister's 'fame' trumped the other two, and by some considerable distance.  In fact, I'd say his colour and wealth had zero influence on the story at all.

[Satoshi]

16 minutes ago, hk blues said:

His public standing is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.  Her celebrity standing is of little relevance either - just by virtue of being a celebrity of any kind is already enough to make her brother's killing newsworthy.  

You have absolutely no way of knowing what weighting the three factors you now mention had (you conveniently ignored the most relevant one 1st time around) on the newsworthiness of the story but I'd say the sister's 'fame' trumped the other two, and by some considerable distance.  In fact, I'd say his colour and wealth had zero influence on the story at all.

Ignored it? I was the one who mentioned it!

But if you really want to think that wealth and ethnicity play no part whatsoever in publicity surrounding crimes then that's your prerogative. It would totally against vast swathes of available information, and an entire field of academic study, but that's fine you can believe what you want.

Ben Kinsella was the name of the teenager killed. He was the 17th teenage victim that year of being stabbed to death in London alone (he was killed in June). His death had more attention than every other stabbing death put together.

Would he have got the same attention if he was a poor black teenager whose sibling was a minor soap star / rapper? I'll let people judge for themselves, considering the vast amount of information available on the phenomenon of the ideal victim.

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Satoshi

[hk blues]

9 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Ignored it? I was the one who mentioned it!

 

You really weren't - 

7 hours ago, Satoshi said:

It got far more attention than every other knife crime that year because he was wealthy and white

Until this a good 6.5 hours later -

50 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

That actually wasnt my take, he attracted extra attention because of all three factors. He wasn't a public figure at all, and his sister was a minor celebrity at best.

[velo army]

If you lads could keep @Satoshi here for a wee while that would be just braw.

Yours,

The entire TA forum.

Edited February 14, 2023 by velo army

[hk blues]

11 minutes ago, velo army said:

If you lads could keep @Satoshi here for a wee while that would be just braw.

Yours,

The entire TA forum.

I've done my stint, I'm looking for someone to pass the baton on to! 

[Stephen Malkmus]

It's pretty obvious that papers especially are going to lead on the stories that will sell the most copies. In disappearances/  murder cases, they're going to lead with the cases that capture the interest of their audiences - which will inevitably be white middle class people. That is the group that comprises most of their readership and people are more inclined to read about people who are similar to themselves in some way. It's clearly also beneficial to sales if you have an attractive women on the front page which is why the Telegraph do it pretty much every second day. It's a cynical game based on our psychology.

As the papers still set the narrative for the wider media then it's no surprise that cases like this lady get a disproportionate amount of coverage.

[highlandcowden]

1 hour ago, Satoshi said:

 

Would he have got the same attention if he was a poor black teenager whose sibling was a minor soap star / rapper? I'll let people judge for themselves, considering the vast amount of information available on the phenomenon of the ideal victim.

 

Yes I'm pretty sure he would because while I acknowledge the media like to push agendas,their main business is selling papers/having an audience&they'll follow any story that does that

[Brother Blades]

2 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Ignored it? I was the one who mentioned it!

But if you really want to think that wealth and ethnicity play no part whatsoever in publicity surrounding crimes then that's your prerogative. It would totally against vast swathes of available information, and an entire field of academic study, but that's fine you can believe what you want.

Ben Kinsella was the name of the teenager killed. He was the 17th teenage victim that year of being stabbed to death in London alone (he was killed in June). His death had more attention than every other stabbing death put together.

Would he have got the same attention if he was a poor black teenager whose sibling was a minor soap star / rapper? I'll let people judge for themselves, considering the vast amount of information available on the phenomenon of the ideal victim.

 

Not sure where you are getting the wealthy bit from? He was 16 or 17 and his father was a cab driver & his mum a school secretary, hardly an opulent upbringing! I’d say working class. 

[hk blues]

3 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Not sure where you are getting the wealthy bit from? He was 16 or 17 and his father was a cab driver & his mum a school secretary, hardly an opulent upbringing! I’d say working class. 

It's called massaging facts to suit your agenda.  And by massaging I mean making up. 

[Satoshi]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

You really weren't - 

Until this a good 6.5 hours later -

I mention it in my very first line on the subject:

9 hours ago, Satoshi said:

A similar thing happened (around the same time I think) when the brother of a soap star was stabbed to death in London. It got far more attention than every other knife crime that year because he was wealthy and white. .

So, an interesting hill to die on. You think the phenomenon doesn't exist at all?

Which is fine, it just goes against vast amount of evidence.

You think that an a very similar case, a relative of a minor celebrity, would get the same attention if they were poor and black and my contention is that it absolutely isn't the case. Rich white kids being stabbed is unusual, poor black ones (sadly) is not. So obviously the first one will receive more attention.

So, if this if your view, then we have nothing further to discuss really.

55 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

It's pretty obvious that papers especially are going to lead on the stories that will sell the most copies. In disappearances/  murder cases, they're going to lead with the cases that capture the interest of their audiences - which will inevitably be white middle class people. That is the group that comprises most of their readership and people are more inclined to read about people who are similar to themselves in some way. It's clearly also beneficial to sales if you have an attractive women on the front page which is why the Telegraph do it pretty much every second day. It's a cynical game based on our psychology.

As the papers still set the narrative for the wider media then it's no surprise that cases like this lady get a disproportionate amount of coverage.

100% correct.

I'm not criticising anyone, this is a worldwide phenomenon, has existed since mass media has existed, and the best way to combat it is to bring it up when it happens. Which is here in this exact case.

It's nothing against the victims, who are blameless and don't chose how much media coverage they get.

People can deny it exists all they want, some people don't think the gender pay gap exists either. But these things are established facts, and if someone doesn't want to believe them that's up to them.

41 minutes ago, highlandcowden said:

Yes I'm pretty sure he would because while I acknowledge the media like to push agendas,their main business is selling papers/having an audience&they'll follow any story that does that

He certainly wouldn't get the same attention. Rich white kid being stabbed is more of a story than poor black kid being stabbed. Rich white woman being stabbed is more of a story than rich white man being stabbed. They match it with their audience.

Which is my whole point. We should challenge it when it happens.

[Satoshi]

12 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Not sure where you are getting the wealthy bit from? He was 16 or 17 and his father was a cab driver & his mum a school secretary, hardly an opulent upbringing! I’d say working class. 

It only has to be relative, he was relatively wealthier than most stabbing murder victims. And certainly relatively wealthier than his attackers.

Sarah Everard wasn't super wealthy, neither is Nicola Bulley, but they are both relatively wealthier than the missing people cases you hear nothing about.

But you're right, if it was an Eton school kid, the son of a millionaire, being stabbed that would undoubtedly by a far bigger story than 5 ethnic minority kids from an inner city school being stabbed. Which is my whole point. This is clear media bias, clear ideal victim narrative, and it should be called out.

It's not the victims who are at fault it's the media (and those who deny the phenomenon despite it being as obvious as the nose on your face). 

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I mention it in my very first line on the subject:

 

You're at it.

You clearly DID NOT mention it in the very 1st line - you only mention 2 factors and NOT the relevant one i.e. that his sister was semi-famous.  Only later did you acknowledge that 3rd factor.  

I am not choosing to die on any hill, I am simply stating that the three cases you have focused on were not newsworthy purely because the victims were wealthy and white (has this been confirmed?) rather because of the circumstances of their disappearance and/or death.  

[Brother Blades]

4 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

It only has to be relative, he was relatively wealthier than most stabbing murder victims. And certainly relatively wealthier than his attackers.

Sarah Everard wasn't super wealthy, neither is Nicola Bulley, but they are both relatively wealthier than the missing people cases you hear nothing about.

But you're right, if it was an Eton school kid, the son of a millionaire, being stabbed that would undoubtedly by a far bigger story than 5 ethnic minority kids from an inner city school being stabbed. Which is my whole point. This is clear media bias, clear ideal victim narrative, and it should be called out.

It's not the victims who are at fault it's the media (and those who deny the phenomenon despite it being as obvious as the nose on your face). 

Going from wealthy & rich kid to “wealthier than the attackers” is a fair leap!
Juriss Kika - one of the attackers, well you’ll never guess what, he was also the son of a cab driver! 
Maybe I’m misremembering but the stabbing I remember getting the most media attention was Stephen Lawrence, not sure what criteria he fits? 
Im not saying you are completely wrong but you really couldn’t have picked a worse example to try to prove your assertion! 

[hk blues]

10 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

But you're right, if it was an Eton school kid, the son of a millionaire, being stabbed that would undoubtedly by a far bigger story than 5 ethnic minority kids from an inner city school being stabbed. Which is my whole point. This is clear media bias, clear ideal victim narrative, and it should be called out.

Have I missed something - where did he (Brother Blades) mention Eton school kids?