They seem to simply take it on faith that it's impossible for darker-skinned people to just have a higher chance of taking poor photos. This could be mediated b

They seem to simply take it on faith that it's impossible for darker-skinned people to just have a higher chance of taking poor photos. This could be mediated by culture of income or a hundred other things. They offer no way to evaluate the statistical validity of the conclusions drawn from "BBC Research". They looked at 1000 politicians, but what was the color breakdown of those? What was the actual sample size of dark-skinned people? Who coded the photos' skin colors and how? This is just utter garbage without any rigor at all. Their "BBC Research" indicates that male faces read much better than female, but they don't comment on this at all. Why did they choose the race angle and not the sex angle? Moreover there are real reasons why dark-skinned features are harder to read than light-skinned. It's the same reason things are hard to make out in the dark, or you can't tell the features of an object covered in vantablack. It's physics. Less light means less information. This whole article is the perfect distillation of low-effort motivated race baiting. To an astute reader it proves the opposite of its bias - if this is what is considered racial greivance worthy of breathless BBC articles, there must really be nothing significant going on to complain about. There is zero chance that anything like this would ever have been published if the results went the other way, no matter to what degree.