4 ms·

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

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%20savile,%2Fm%2F0q3y8tf,rotherham%20abuse,rotherham%20rape,rotherham%20sexual 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,%2Fm%2F0q3y8tf,rotherham%20abuse,rotherham%20rape,rotherham%20sexual 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.

notahacker 9y ago
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.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > 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=stuart%20hall,%2Fm%2F0q3y8tf,rotherham%20abuse,rotherham%20rape,rotherham%20sexual 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_exploitation_scandal 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."
  - notahacker 9y ago
    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 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+newspapers&safe=off&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0up7n_b3TAhUNOsAKHSXgAmoQ_AUIBygC&biw=1057&bih=537 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.

notahacker 9y ago

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.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> 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=stuart%20hall,%2Fm%2F0q3y8tf,rotherham%20abuse,rotherham%20rape,rotherham%20sexual 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_exploitation_scandal 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."
- notahacker 9y ago
  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 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+newspapers&safe=off&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0up7n_b3TAhUNOsAKHSXgAmoQ_AUIBygC&biw=1057&bih=537 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.