Biased News Reporting

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

Very bad example of biased news in the age we live in. They simply stated what he will do and took the quotes from him. Seems like a fine article to me.

And there's clearly a reason why he chose black kids. He's also black, and has seen the barriers to education that black kids in the UK face. There are plenty of other scholarships out there for white kids, usually sponsored by a white guy who went to a mostly white school.

I don't think you understand the hurt that this causes the OP and why it's oppressing him.

I will honestly remember this era mostly for the constant 'if a *insert what gender/race I am* did this' nonsense.

I'm more concerned that in an article about education Sky News referred to Cambridge University collages.

Wheres the bias in the factually correct article exactly?

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Just saw on Sky News an article that makes wonder how biased the Media are against the local native populace, read article below:-

https://news.sky.com/story/stormzy-launches-cambridge-scholarship-for-black-students-11473885

If a White person said this was for White Students, what do you think the reaction would be?

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of 'media bias'.

Il Fascista wrote: »

Looks bad don't you think?:pac:

Yes, when you completely change the meaning of my post and add in complete lies, it does look bad.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Is it possible that perhaps these inner city Black students are not getting high enough grades to gain access these educational institutions?

Yeah but think deeper on why.

Look at Ireland, where you can mostly discard race and just focus on opportunity - think of kids growing up in inner-city Dublin (and we're talking about the commonly accepted definition of what 'inner city' means here). The majority of these kids are going to go to school nearby, so they're going to be going to public schools only, likely under-funded. So they're already at a disadvantage compared to a kid who grows up elsewhere in Dublin who can maybe attend a much better private school.

The inner-city kids will have to work harder through the education system in order to get the same grades of a private school kid - there will be the odd gifted exception, but the fact is that if kids don't have access to better education, they simply won't be as well educated.

Then they grow up, do their Leaving Cert, where again they've likely had to work so much harder than someone from a private school to reach the same level. They succeed though, and get offers from some top universities (though address-discrimination has certainly prevented a few of their classmates from getting offers).

Now they have to face down the fact that they will have to pay fees to go to that college. That's likely much easier for the private school kids family. But, they scrimp and save and they get in (although again - even more of their inner city classmates have had to give up here because they couldn't afford it).

This is where scholarships come in by the way, why they're so important in helping disadvantaged groups (be they racial or class or whatever).

Now they go to college and maybe things become a level-playing field at this point but they probably don't. The better off students will be able to spend more time focusing on education, buying the textbooks and computer equipment they might need, not stressing about being able to afford student accommodation, etc. Whereas the inner city student might have that baggage, will probably have to work a part time job to afford everything, which takes time from their studies.

Sadly, they'll probably also still face discrimination at college too, even something as simple as accent snobbery is rife and can hinder their progress. Adds on wee bits of stress, makes college into a less welcoming environment.

I've described a student from the inner city who has made the absolute best out of their situation, but think about one of those kids who tried and failed, couldn't get the money together to afford college. They'll have to go straight from secondary school into a job, and unless they're extremely lucky, that job will not be well paid, it will have fewer career path prospects compared to what graduates will have.

By 30, they're likely to be still below the average wage, perhaps even below the poverty line. They have kids, probably earlier than the graduate, and they have to afford them too. Now the kids want to go to school, and that smaller wage has to pay for that - so the kids go to public schools. And probably can't afford college. And so on.

Go right back to the start of that cycle, and what was the difference between the inner city kid and the private school kid? Say they were almost identical in terms of physical and mental capabilities at the moment of their birth. The only thing different is where. And what choice did the child have in that? None. Yet, from the minute they start breathing, the system will start disadvantaging one of them and benefiting the other. It's an endless cycle - almost worse because the gap keeps getting bigger between those at the top and those at the bottom.

You can only break that cycle with social programs. Scholarships for disadvantaged areas or demographic groups. Better funding for public schools. Public welfare programs. Better public health care.

There's two ways of paying for these - private donations as per this Stormzy thing, and more progressive taxation which aims to reduce that "accident of birth" economic inequality (these two things shouldn't be mutually exclusive by the way).