They did report that, it’s in the article. It’s right at the top of the page in the article.
During his attack in Walsall, John Ashby beat the woman - in her 20s - with a stick, while also shouting anti-Muslim abuse, wrongly believing her to be of that faith.
In a sentencing hearing at Birmingham Crown Court on Friday, the judge described the 32-year-old as a “deeply unpleasant racist and Islamophobe”.
Ashby was told he would serve a minimum term of 14 years in prison.
Sure, but imagine him raping someone and yelling “take that you filthy <some slur for jew>”. The word antisemitic would be in every headline and there would be questions in parliament. And to be clear, that’s the appropriate reaction! It would be really nice if we could extend the privilege (apparently) to muslims as well.
And regarding the information being there when you read the article: Not everyone clicks through to read the article. In fact, I’ll wager that the vast majority doesn’t. As such, headlines have a huge impact on shaping people’s perceived reality. It’s why people have a problem with headlines voiced passively, like “bullet finds way into human’s body”. If you read the article you’ll find that the bullet was fired by an Israeli soldier, and that the human was a 5 year old Palestinian, and that the body part the bullet ended up in was their skull, so all the information is there, so no bias, no lying, right?
They did report that, it’s in the article. It’s right at the top of the page in the article.
Just read the article.
Nobody reads articles. People read headlines. Also the article doesn’t explicitly connect the cause of the rape to her being Muslim.
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/social-media-users-probably-wont-read-beyond-headline-researchers-say
Sure, but imagine him raping someone and yelling “take that you filthy <some slur for jew>”. The word antisemitic would be in every headline and there would be questions in parliament. And to be clear, that’s the appropriate reaction! It would be really nice if we could extend the privilege (apparently) to muslims as well.
And regarding the information being there when you read the article: Not everyone clicks through to read the article. In fact, I’ll wager that the vast majority doesn’t. As such, headlines have a huge impact on shaping people’s perceived reality. It’s why people have a problem with headlines voiced passively, like “bullet finds way into human’s body”. If you read the article you’ll find that the bullet was fired by an Israeli soldier, and that the human was a 5 year old Palestinian, and that the body part the bullet ended up in was their skull, so all the information is there, so no bias, no lying, right?