Apparently BBC, others think yesterday's anti-war protests of no significance
An original piece by Partridge

If one were to rely solely on mainstream headline news for one's information about the world we live in, one could be forgiven for believing that yesterday's worldwide anti-war protests didn't happen. Browsing (as I do every day) my headline newsfeeds, only one mainstream outlet made mention of the global protests. That was the Associated Press wire service, who ran a piece called War Opponents Protest Around the Globe.

The BBC often described as 'impartial' and certainly loathed by those on the right for it's 'anti-war bias' (a bias that has been statistically proven to be non-existent) - despite citing the figure for the London march as between 15,000 and 80,000 - did not deem the protest newsworthy enough to appear in today's headlines on either its International or UK newsfeeds (see pics). What it did adjudge as being in the public interest were the no-show of Brad Pitt and Angelena Jolie at their 'wedding'; Prince Charles and his lover announcing their intention to visit Egypt, Saudi Arabia and India; Isaac Hayes quitting South Park; and a woman bitten by a dog in London (well, it makes a difference from 'Man Bites Dog').

Similarly, none of the other mainstream newsfeeds I subscribe to (New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, The Guardian/Observer, The Independent, The Times, Irish Times, Sunday Business Post [Ireland] and Reuters) mentioned the global demonstrations in their headlines. The argument cannot be made that this is because today is a Sunday - because all of these organisations update their websites daily. The French students' mass protests against a proposed employment law are (justifiably) making the headlines, as is a 'drunken riot' in Spain - but alas it appears that worldwide opposition to the continued occupation of Iraq is nothing to note.

Long live the Liberal Media!

BBC's International Newsfeed


BBC's UK Newsfeed