Buried by the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation in the UK regional news section, yet if he'd been some random US 'rapper' his death would've been on the front page.
That's because it isn't worthy of anything beyond the regional news at this time? It might make it onto the national TV news as a short segment, but currently the the Everard case is taking up a lot of space and the obit slot is taken up by Murray Walker who sadly recently died.
Yes, "at this point" doesn't mean "literally this second". "This point" just means "this far past the threshold of lazy, shallow journalism". Not a point in time.
Her Tweet about Netflix was on the BBC front page a few days ago, on a day I'm sure many other murders happened.
Even if you didn't see that one, surely you saw a ton of space dedicated to the minutiae of silly Royal drama worthy of the tabloid press. Every minor comment received a brand new front page bump.
What does that have to do with anything? That story wasn't even known at the time of the Tweet. I'm comparing the prominence that the Tweet was given with that of any other murder in the period it was on the front page.
Unless your ranking goes police officer murder > Taylor Swift Tweet > regular murder?
Even now, the front page is tracking Twitter rather than reality. There are multiple articles about women being unsafe on the streets of the UK, and how no-one cares about their plight. Women aren't even close to the most at-risk demographic for violent attacks. But that hashtag isn't trending, so who cares, I suppose.
That's what news = engagement gets you. You can't use the BBC or most modern news to get any sense of the relative magnitudes of society's issues. Rather, you get a feedback loop of the same topics that social media algos push.
Yeah, a not-insignificant number of their articles are also just an embedded Tweet with some archive text about the people involved. I wonder if they're generating some 'articles' algorithmically.
