Biassed Reporting

[rower40]

East Midlands Today have a report on a cyclist knocking down a 2-year-old in a pedestrian precinct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nott ... 946834.stm

So why didn't they report my week-long stay in hospital after being hit by a car that turned right at a left-turn-only filter? The unfortunate toddler will be in plaster for a month. I'll have metal in my wrist, and restricted movement, for the rest of my life.

And how many people were killed or injured by cars in the East Midlands TODAY? I bet it was not zero.

Thank You, BBC, for demonising cyclists yet again.

Let's hope this item is news because it's so rare.

[Lady Python]

One thing the BBC is good at is biased reporting no matter what the subject is. What angers me is we have to pay an extra tax - sorry TV Licence for that quango

[meic]

I suppose it is news because of its rarity value. It is commonplace for cars to maim people.
I hope they catch the idiot that did it and give them the sort of punishment that would please a Daily Mail reader. This is why I prefer it to be illegal to cycle on pavements, even though I do it myself. The safety of the pedestrians must take priority and if some idiot ignores that, Authorities dont react against all idiots, they react against all cyclists.
A two year old should be perfectly safe to play in a pedestrianised area.

Would have been better reported as
"Lucky break for 2 year old that he was hit by an idiot on a bike rather than an Idiot in a car."

I never pay the TV Licence Fee, it drives the TVLA mad. They leave me alone since I threatened to take an action of harrassment against them!

[archy sturmer]

What angers me is we have to pay an extra tax - sorry TV Licence for that quango

I don't (and you don't have to) pay a brass razoo to the beeb, and it's quite legit - I haven't got a TV,
BBC radio is pretty good - and costs us nothing!
Rarity value makes it news.
I just wish the oafs who ride on pavements had some rarity.
- AS

[eileithyia]

And of course no one asks why the carer was not in control of the 2 year old, preventing it from running in front of a cyclist, as already said good job it was a cyclist and not a motorised vehicle!

[reohn2]

Come,come,now are you saying The BBC of all people are (looks both ways then whispers)biased,surely not sensationalist never

[archy sturmer]

Thank You, BBC, for demonising cyclists yet again.

Let's hope this item is news because it's so rare.

Blaming the messenger - and anyone else but the culprit!

I think cyclists who ride on pavements and knock down two-year-olds deserve to be demonised.

Who’s to blame here - the idiot on the bike or the BBC who reported it?
- AS

[fatboy]

And of course no one asks why the carer was not in control of the 2 year old, preventing it from running in front of a cyclist, as already said good job it was a cyclist and not a motorised vehicle!

Think that this is a bit strong. When I take my kids to a pedestrianised shopping area it is a nice relief to not have to worry too much since their shouldn't be any traffic.

Back on the original issue.

1, Yes it's wrong that a cyclist hit someone BUT
2, How many people were killed, Seriously injured etc by cars on the same day? Deaths caused by cars/lorries etc are so common place that no-one seems to notice nor apparently care unless it delays their journey. Come the revolution it will all change (pigs fed and ready to fly!)

[AlbionLass]

I saw the report on the East Midlands news too.
The cyclist was of course wrong to be riding in that area but cycling is permitted there between certain times I believe. That doesn't make the cyclist any less wrong of course.

[ransos]

Thank You, BBC, for demonising cyclists yet again.

Let's hope this item is news because it's so rare.

Blaming the messenger - and anyone else but the culprit!

I think cyclists who ride on pavements and knock down two-year-olds deserve to be demonised.

Who’s to blame here - the idiot on the bike or the BBC who reported it?
- AS

You're right - but is every motorist who knocks down a pedestrian or cyclist demonised in the same way? Of course not.

[archy sturmer]

Thank You, BBC, for demonising cyclists yet again.

Let's hope this item is news because it's so rare.

Blaming the messenger - and anyone else but the culprit!

I think cyclists who ride on pavements and knock down two-year-olds deserve to be demonised.

Who’s to blame here - the idiot on the bike or the BBC who reported it?
- AS

You're right - but is every motorist who knocks down a pedestrian or cyclist demonised in the same way? Of course not.

Reading the report, I don't see that anyone is being demonised.
It just reports what happened - a very nasty incident.

What an odd reaction to news that a cyclist has maimed a toddler - to get all defensive about the way it's reported.

I suppose someone might say that in the interests of balance, there should be a voice representing cyclists. I wonder what that voice might say in this instance...

We'd do cyling a service by distancing outrselves from people who ride on pedestrian areas, particularly ones who break toddler’s legs and then do a bunk.

And some sympathy with the kid wouldn't go amiss!

That kid, and his family, will now view cyclists with distrust - not becaase of "demonising" news report, but because of what happened.

-AS

[dropout]

Some of you seem to be missing rower40's point. For every incident where a cyclist causes injury to someone else there must hundreds of incidents where motorists cause injury, yet they are rarely reported in part because they are so common and therefore hardly newsworthy. The net effect is to create a very distorted impression of the relative risks of being injured by a cyclist as opposed to a motorist.

Radio 4's Today programme once tried, as a one-off to make a point, reporting road incident casualties in the same way as casualties resulting from other violent incidents. The result was a programme that consisted almost entirely of an endless sequence of road casualty reports - simply not entertaining. We must remember that "the news" is principally entertainment, a kind of variety show. The everyday and mundane has no place in it.

[ransos]

Thank You, BBC, for demonising cyclists yet again.

Let's hope this item is news because it's so rare.

Blaming the messenger - and anyone else but the culprit!

I think cyclists who ride on pavements and knock down two-year-olds deserve to be demonised.

Who’s to blame here - the idiot on the bike or the BBC who reported it?
- AS

You're right - but is every motorist who knocks down a pedestrian or cyclist demonised in the same way? Of course not.

Reading the report, I don't see that anyone is being demonised.
It just reports what happened - a very nasty incident.

What an odd reaction to news that a cyclist has maimed a toddler - to get all defensive about the way it's reported.

I suppose someone might say that in the interests of balance, there should be a voice representing cyclists. I wonder what that voice might say in this instance...

We'd do cyling a service by distancing outrselves from people who ride on pedestrian areas, particularly ones who break toddler’s legs and then do a bunk.

And some sympathy with the kid wouldn't go amiss!

That kid, and his family, will now view cyclists with distrust - not becaase of "demonising" news report, but because of what happened.

-AS

I fail to see how I'm being defensive, and to somehow suggest I am looking for ways to defend the cyclist is offensive. Again I point out to you that this incident has been prominently reported, yet scores of incidents with cars knocking down pedestrians occur each day. These are often never reported at all, because they are so common.

[Graham]

Again I point out to you that this incident has been prominently reported, yet scores of incidents with cars knocking down pedestrians occur each day. These are often never reported at all, because they are so common.

A fair point. Thus we are reminded how events become newsworthy . . rare / unusual / unacceptable to the norms. And perhaps how extrapolating a world view out of news items might give a rather distorted view of the world.

[archy sturmer]

Radio 4's Today programme once tried, as a one-off to make a point, reporting road incident casualties in the same way as casualties resulting from other violent incidents. The result was a programme that consisted almost entirely of an endless sequence of road casualty reports - simply not entertaining.

I wonder how many people found it interesting - grim, perhaps, but not interesting.

If a national news programme carried a report on every road death, there wouldn't be much time for anything else.
But how about this - as a regular spot on the news, just record the number of road deaths this week. Along with figures like the FTSE index, pollen count etc.

- AS