The sentences are believed to be the longest in the UK’s history for non-violent protest and were delivered under two new controversial laws that supercharged policing powers.
If this was the case, over 99% of them would be free to go.
I’d say it’s 100% rage bait to include rapists in the title, but it’s worse - it’s a flat out but very deliberate lie made up and perpetuated by patriarchal rape culture to give the illusion that all crime is treated the same, and that there are significantly fewer rapes than there really are (E: because, in this lie, rapists are not only generally convicted but seriously punished, and those who believe it, use the low numbers of convicted rapists as evidence of it not being the serious and widespread problem that it is, rather than of the system being complicit).
A more accurate headline should be: patriarchal pro oil “justice” system punishes anti-oil protestors significantly more harshly than it does rapists
I think you’re giving CNN too much credit. So much so that it dips into conspiracy logic.
Never over complicate and attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance and greed. Why would they do this? Because it’s clickbait. It’s a jarring word, and they want people to visit the site. Rapist are under convicted, yes. But to spin an entire web about the wording in the headline? C’mon. The body uses the suggested sentences for each crime as reference, which is why they could use the attention grabbing headline.
I get and understand the concept of what you’re trying to say, but it’s more than a bit of a reach to say it’s in play here, I think. Not fitting in the complicated history of untested rape kits and leniency in sentencing based on the rapists’ backgrounds and the socioeconomic backgrounds and skin color of the victims into a headline about climate protesters having the book thrown at them isn’t bias. It’s just kinda superfluous information in regards to the topic at hand.
I get it, it’s a massive problem. And one that desperately needs to be addressed. I just don’t think it extends to this article. Bias can be subtle and often is. And I understand that trying to point it out can be like trying to catch smoke in a butterfly net. But the subtlety of it cuts both ways, and I just think you happen to be on the wrong side of that divide. Just my opinion, though. That’s the great thing about subtlety and nuance, it’s up for discussion.
If this was the case, over 99% of them would be free to go.
I’d say it’s 100% rage bait to include rapists in the title, but it’s worse - it’s a flat out but very deliberate lie made up and perpetuated by patriarchal rape culture to give the illusion that all crime is treated the same, and that there are significantly fewer rapes than there really are (E: because, in this lie, rapists are not only generally convicted but seriously punished, and those who believe it, use the low numbers of convicted rapists as evidence of it not being the serious and widespread problem that it is, rather than of the system being complicit).
A more accurate headline should be: patriarchal pro oil “justice” system punishes anti-oil protestors significantly more harshly than it does rapists
I think you’re giving CNN too much credit. So much so that it dips into conspiracy logic.
Never over complicate and attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance and greed. Why would they do this? Because it’s clickbait. It’s a jarring word, and they want people to visit the site. Rapist are under convicted, yes. But to spin an entire web about the wording in the headline? C’mon. The body uses the suggested sentences for each crime as reference, which is why they could use the attention grabbing headline.
It’s called bias, it doesn’t have to be intentional to exist and be pervasive.
I get and understand the concept of what you’re trying to say, but it’s more than a bit of a reach to say it’s in play here, I think. Not fitting in the complicated history of untested rape kits and leniency in sentencing based on the rapists’ backgrounds and the socioeconomic backgrounds and skin color of the victims into a headline about climate protesters having the book thrown at them isn’t bias. It’s just kinda superfluous information in regards to the topic at hand.
I get it, it’s a massive problem. And one that desperately needs to be addressed. I just don’t think it extends to this article. Bias can be subtle and often is. And I understand that trying to point it out can be like trying to catch smoke in a butterfly net. But the subtlety of it cuts both ways, and I just think you happen to be on the wrong side of that divide. Just my opinion, though. That’s the great thing about subtlety and nuance, it’s up for discussion.