To add some context to the side-note, for those unfamiliar with the story, the BBC used that word in an editorial/journalistic context, quoting the racial abuse a man suffered after being intentionally hit with a car while waiting on the bus. The victim's family were determined that the BBC show pictures showing the extent of his injuries and quote, in full, the racist tirade he was subject to during the attack.
Whether or not you agree with them using that word on a news report, I think the context and intent are really important.
That’s the fastest u-turn I’ve done in a while. Context matters.
So by avoiding the BBC site, you're going against the victim's wishes?
Edit: on reading further on this, there seems to have been more outrage at the BBC reporting what was said, as they were asked to do, than at the near murder of the guy in an unprovoked racist attack.
> on reading further on this, there seems to have been more outrage at the BBC reporting what was said, as they were asked to do, than at the near murder of the guy in an unprovoked racists attack.
That's modern society in a nutshell for ya. It seems like the priority is more about virtue signaling than it is about seeking truth and justice in all things.
For most non-racists, it goes without saying that race-related violence is unacceptable.
Sadly it also happens often enough that we aren't going to tweet/write a comment saying "this is bad" every single time it happens.
Whereas the BBC journalist using that word was a) not a common event b) as seen in this thread not such a binary good/bad thing even among non-racists and c) affects news standards that broadcast to huge numbers of people.
If I could prevent one physical attack by allowing one use of the word on the TV I would, but I don't think it's at all hypocritical or virtue signalling that many people felt it more important to talk about the journalism than the case being reported.
You remember the good old days when all politics was local? Now it’s all International. All of it. The British Broadcasting Corp. is a Crown Corporation mostly funded through TV licenses charged to British subjects when I last checked. Maybe that’s changed, but it’s not in my wheelhouse as an American citizen on American soil to help regulate your lexicon. Do what you think is right, but consider the place in which you choose to proselytize with greater care. That’s what the Twatter is for.
> The victim's family were determined that the BBC show pictures showing the extent of his injuries and quote, in full, the racist tirade he was subject to during the attack.
Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this sentence -- could you elaborate? I think my confusion is centered on the word 'determined'.
> The victim's family were [resolute] that the BBC [should] show pictures showing the extent of his injuries and quote, in full, the racist tirade he was subject to during the attack.
The victim's family specifically requested that the journalist repeat the phrase used in full. The journalist/editors obviously made the choice, but they chose to go by the family's wishes rather than by the general consensus on whether it's acceptable to say that word even in the context of reporting about it.
It got auto collapsed because it's a reply to my comment that got flagged and killed. Almost certainly users flagging it (although oddly it's also positively upvoted) not a mod decision.
Yes you're right, sorry if anyone read my comment to imply that BBC actively used that word to describe a black person themselves.
But it's pretty much accepted in the UK and especially UK media that if reporting on it, you say "the n word", especially if you're a white reporter.
A lot of people were extremely offended, even in the context you've added, and the BBC have now acknowledged it was wrong.
The reason for today's boycott is partly their delay (and initial defence), and partly a wide, subjective view of institutional racism among large parts of the BBC.
This is obviously a very complex topic, but for now can't we at least agree that we don't need to hear the n-word purposefully spoken by BBC News?
It's the same thing as saying "the n word" to me. You're still telling someone the word and it shouldn't matter in this instance, because they're reporting on what was said, written, or done.
Context and intent matter. If a single word causes so much outrage, you need to look at who exactly is getting offended. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of black people don't find offense in it being said at all - again, if you give them the context. Just telling them "BBC guy said the word!" is a bit disingenuous.
> It's the same thing as saying "the n word" to me
The difference IMO is that one is a reminder to anyone listening that they should never use that word, whereas the other is a normalisation or hearing it.
I'm certainly not an expert on this subject though, and being white myself I take my lead in this area, and on this story, from non-white people who I know or who I follow in politics/media/etc. I can't speak to how the majority of black people on the UK feel, but definitely plenty of them understood the context and were still very outspoken against it.
Whether or not you agree with them using that word on a news report, I think the context and intent are really important.