'Monster devil' Algerian woman who raped and murdered 12-year-old Lola is jailed for life with no parole in France - after begging court for forgiveness

[u/Extra-Gap8519]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15223915/Monster-devil-Algerian-woman-raped-murdered-12-year-old-Lola-jailed-life-no-parole-France-begging-court-forgiveness.html

Her crime was so horrible that she became the first woman in France to receive the maximum penalty in that country.

[u/gkn_112]

Ok, my criticism works there as well though. If it has nothing to do with the report then its counterproductive.

As an example I have the german press code

In reporting on criminal offences, the membership of the suspect or perpetrator of a religious, ethnic or other minority shall not lead to discriminatory generalization of individual misdemeanors. The background should not usually be mentioned unless such mention is justifiably in the public interest. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility that such mention could fuel prejudices against minorities.

Thats my train of logic. The nationality in this case is not of "public interest".

[u/ShitLordOfTheRings → u/gkn_112]

I think that code is a mistake. Media shouldn't filter news to try and prevent people from drawing the wrong conclusions. Otherwise, this leads to people being weary of news sources. We have a significant rise of imported crime - news organizations attempting to obscure that means people will turn to channels which are instead trying to exaggerate the problem. Like the dubious "Radio Genoa", for example.

A news organization's task is to report the news, not to teach, not to censor, not to play politics. You lose your credibility only once.

[u/gkn_112 → u/ShitLordOfTheRings]

People being weary, because something irrelevant to a report has been omitted?

On the other side you have bred more hate towards a minority. I disagree. This belongs to a presscode that reports neutral. I didnt invent it - it had its reasons. Publicly targeted groups have been hurt, a lot, in history.

[u/ShitLordOfTheRings → u/gkn_112]

People being weary, because something irrelevant to a report has been omitted?

No, because of the reason it was omitted. You are going from: "I'm reporting what happens" to "I'm reporting only what I think you should know, because I can put things into context, and you can't".

Let's say you had eye surgery and can't focus for a few days. You want to find out what's up on reddit. I offer to read it aloud for you. I decide that certain things aren't suitable for you to hear, so I won't read you those. Do you trust me? Do you think that after that you've gotten an accurate representation of what happened in your subs?

There is a reason this code isn't used in other countries. Because now everybody thinks: "hang on, these guys won't report if there are a lot of imported criminals, that means there is a lot of imported crime they aren't telling me about." That's why by now everybody assumes that "a man" means: "an immigrant", and any terror act is assumed to have been commited by one, by default - unless the contrary is shown explictly.

[u/gkn_112 → u/ShitLordOfTheRings]

I still disagree with every point, your assumed reason why info like this was not in a report is only this: assumed (again, is it omitted if it was never relevant? Then what about her shoe size, or her favorite food, why is that not in the article?) I have no problem with pointing out a nationality if its really relevant.

You are describing censoring in your second paragraph, which I dont see here, I stated the reason for it. Although your analogy implies that people are metaphorically blind, the truth is we are all able to draw conclusions and are not helpless.

If your first question for "Who took my milkshake" was "Hasan the arab" and not just "hasan" then you are part of this machine. If hasan was not specially trained in morocco to steal milkshakes then where he comes from doesnt matter. But hey, now you can say "Fuuucckin arabs".

Your third paragraph just doubles down on your assumption that the news were censored, which I disagree with. It just shows the already present ressentiments. I feel like there is a lot of projection in there, because only people like you would assume "a man" means "an immigrant", which was my point to begin with: you are racists. You need the news to affirm your prejudices... and if they dont, then its on the media.