Hacker News Reader

No far right conspiracy theory is required to explain why internet search data dominated by Americans and consumers of US media shows higher spikes for a high-profile murder case in their own country than a sex abuse scandal in the UK which unfolded over a long period of time.

See also the comparatively tiny size of the spike for the highest profile sex abuser in the UK ever, thought to be responsible for hundreds of cases of child abuse by himself and a major celebrity in his own right https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=trayvon,...

Here we go, apples-to-apples comparison of the attention paid, in Great Britain, to the rapes of Jimmy Savile, vs. those in Rotherham: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=jimmy%20sa...

The disparity is even bigger when looking at the global attention: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=jimmy%20savile,%2...

If you check the dates, the interest in Savile corresponds not to his death, but to the release of the sexual abuse documentary about him.

But I'm sure the motivated reader can find some reason why Google trends is wrong and the media is unbiased - after all, they did report on it, they just maybe neglected to promote it as much as when the rapist was a white male.

Shock horror: name of famous person who became one of most notorious criminals in history receives more Google searches than any specific search string related to the city a group of not-independently-famous people committed similar crimes in. Still, if you wanted to do an actual apples to apples comparison between equivalent search strings like "rotherham abuse" and "jimmy savile abuse", suddenly it actually looks - to somebody completely ignorant of the UK media - like it's paying rather less attention to Sir Jimmy's vices. Maybe I could make some conspiracy theory about it being down to his whiteness.

Or not, because anyone with a passing familiarity with the UK media knows that both Jimmy Savile and the Rotherham abuses were covered in a huge amount of detail and had public enquiries as a result of public outrage following the media coverage.

And anybody with the faintest degree of intellectual honesty knows that comparing dissimilar search strings on Google Trends, which tells you absolutely nothing about media bias, does not refute that

There's only one entity that's wilfully distorting reality here in order to pursue a racial agenda, and that's you.

> Shock horror: name of famous person who became one of most notorious criminals in history receives more Google searches than any specific search string related to the city a group of not-independently-famous people committed similar crimes in.

'became one of most notorious criminals in history' - ignoring that notoriety is the result of media attention, given his number of victims, I suppose it was deserved. Lets look at Stuart Hall then - he also became one of the most notorious criminals in history: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=s... (yes, the spike in interest coincides with his arrest)

And it 'only' took him ~21 victims, 60 times fewer than just one of the organized rape gangs!

> equivalent search strings like "rotherham abuse" and "jimmy savile abuse"

Are they equivalent? Put in 'Rotherham', and you get mostly constant noise, indicating general news about the city overshadows news about the scandal itself. Put in 'jimmy savile' or 'stuart hall', and you get obvious peaks when the scandals hit the news, and mostly no activity otherwise. Peaks higher than the difference between the average interest in Rotherham, and the increase around the time of the scandal.

> There's only one entity that's wilfully distorting reality here in order to pursue a racial agenda, and that's you.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... :

"Because most of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification."

Put "Rotherham" into Google News around the time of the Panorama programmes or the trials or the investigation and you got wall-to-wall coverage of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, via the British mainstream media. So no, people searching for it didn't need to append additional terms.

Put Rotherham into Google Trends and you get an enormous spike around the time the report into the Rotherham abuse was released. The claim that it's "constant noise" is a lie, period as is your ridiculous earlier attempt to suggest the news coverage was more to do with the lower tier football team. Rotherham might have been spread out over a longer period and thus less easily isolated from other news coverage but it made a lot more front pages than Stuart Hall and saw a a lot more articles over a much longer period. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=rotherham

I mean, do you honestly believe you're going to convince people that news editors "suppressed" this story (or indeed, downplayed the ethnicity of the perpetrators)... https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rotherham+abuse+scandal+ne...

Of all the intellectually dishonest arguments I've seen in favour of people's racial prejudices, I've yet to come across anything dumber than your continued insistence that news media you evidently don't read of a country you've probably never visited "suppressed" stuff that was splashed all over its front pages and the subject of multiple television specials, despite all the British people correcting you on this.

They didn't suppress it, they just didn't make as big of a media circus out of it as of other stories.

> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=rotherham

Good job omitting comparison from that link. Why don't we add it back in, shall we?

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=rotherham,... https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=rotherham,jimmy%2...

The spikes for Savile and Hall are both bigger (above the background noise) than for Rotherham. I also applaud you for ignoring the bit of my post on how council staff literally suppressed information to not be racist.

Of course media manipulation doesn't end there - lets compare the Holocaust to the Holodomor:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=holocaus...

Both deliberate genocides of a majority upon an ethnic minority, both murdering a comparable amount of people, yet the Holodomor is practically ignored. But I'm sure you'll find some reason Ukrainian lives are less worth remembering than Jewish lives.

> They didn't suppress it, they just didn't make as big of a media circus out of it as of other stories.

Except for it being on the front pages for days, unlike the vast majority of paedophiles who weren't celebrities in their own right (and Stuart Hall, for that matter). I know there were a number of failings related to council staff being overly conscious of accusations of racism (not to mention the actual far-right groups targeting the town), I read it in the wall to wall media coverage you deny exists. But yeah, you keep trying to tell me how stuff's reported on channels I watch and in media I read from deliberate misinterpretation of Google fucking trends.

Obviously that wasn't a stupid enough position for you to argue so you're now pretending that media narratives around the Holocaust versus the Holodomor[1] are driven by Jewish conspiracies rather than because a World War against a glamorous symbol-of-evil leader that ended in the liberation of death camps understandably would get more attention than poorly-understood atrocities committed within the Soviet Union even without the former's geopolitical consequences, a large diaspora and dedicated remembrance organizations based in English-speaking Western countries. Of course, the genocide of the Congoese by the Belgians gets even less attention, but that won't fit your media manipulation highlights oppression of selected minorities by Caucasians and suppresses the reverse bullshit narrative

Fuck off to back to Stormfront you pathetic little troll.

[1]a word which, incidentally, wasn't even used to refer to the events until decades later and didn't make Ukranian dictionaries until this century

The independent inquiry into the Rotherham sex ring is worth a read, if you haven't browsed through it already [0].

[0] https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent...

Why exactly did you choose two arbitrary news stories, to prove what? Some news stories resonate more than others?

Trayvon Martin Case was more about the bigger topic of racial profiling than about the case itself, an already highly politicized social issue in the US which condensed on that case.

The Rotherham scandal was to all current knowledge an event of singular magnitude of local non-US scope, with no bigger topic to resonate against other than xenophobia.

> Some news stories resonate more than others?

'Resonate'. That's a nice way of putting some stories are more reported than others.

> The Rotherham scandal was to all current knowledge a singular event of local non-US scope, with no bigger topic to resonate against other than xenophobia.

I didn't limit Google trends to the US, so I don't see why non-US scope is relevant. But are you're saying that the Rotherham scandal was reported on less because it resonates with xenophobia? That journalists suppress stories if they promote the wrong ideology?

Also, 'singular event'? Forgetting for the moment that it was at least 1400 events over a period of 16 years, did you bother to scroll to the bottom of the Rotherham scandal wikipedia page, and click on the link that leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetra... ?

> But are you're saying that the Rotherham scandal was reported on less because it resonates with xenophobia? That journalists suppress stories if they promote the wrong ideology?

No, we're saying that the suppression of the Rotherham scandal which was extensively reported on by the British media exists only in the imagination of the far right and people that don't understand how Google Trends works, as you conveniently demonstrated by earlier linking to an Wikipedia article explaining that it was investigative journalism by the Times - about as mainstream as UK news journalism gets - that ultimately lead to a public enquiry.

I'm not convinced that drawing attention to the fact other sex scandals happened in the UK under completely different circumstances and were generally less reported on than the Rotherham ones and didn't necessarily get multiple BBC Panorama specials devoted to them like the Rotherham ones really helps your case.

Just because you news events don't happen to get picked up according exactly to your priorities doesn't mean there is a hidden agenda.

There tons of stories that are underreported in my opinion, yet if you ever came anywhere near a copy desk you might know that in non-authoritarian countries there simply to much chaos there to pull of a coordinated effort of that magnitude.

Actually alot people on the right and left believe in the media pushing narratives.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/28/1464146/-6-Corporatio...

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/journolist-inside-the-...

Journolist showed that journalists do in fact discuss what narrative to push.

In the UK [2] was reportedly very widely. And used by many used by many racist to lend their opinions some credibility.

Trayvon Martin's case didn't get much press either until the family managed to get a good lawyer working (pro-bono) on their case, who then got a publicist helping them as well.

Look at the sources for the Rotherham Wikipedia article. How are you going to honestly say that the media is omitting the story? It's more likely that you didn't see it in your own filter bubble[0] and I'd also guess you're from the USA, which obviously has more incentive to front-page domestic news (but I highly doubt you'd find omission of it on any major news site).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble