Thread by @cfmmuk

1/8 PART 2: @cfmmuk's media analysis on Edinburgh attacks. Having examined TV, we now look at online.

782 articles on Golders Green across 4 days. Just 35 on Edinburgh.

Same question: does British media cover attacks on Muslim communities the same way?

The answer is NO! 🧵

2/8 The volume gap online is even wider than broadcast.

Golders Green: 196 articles per day. Edinburgh: 9 per day.

Golders Green possible audience reach: 13.2 billion. Edinburgh: 701 million. Every metric tells the same story.

3/8 The same publications covered both stories very differently. GB News: 63 Golders Green articles, 1 Edinburgh. The Independent: 138 vs 4. The Guardian: 32 vs 2. Daily Express: 80 vs 2. Not one publication gave Edinburgh comparable coverage.

4/8 In its initial reporting The Guardian managed to write an article where the headline and first 300 words approx, omitted any mention of the anti-#Muslim motive behind the attack despite a widely available video showing the suspect shouting anti-#Muslim abuse.

5/8 "Antisemitic" appeared 185 times across Golders Green coverage editorially, in headlines, as fact. "Islamophobia" has appeared once in Edinburgh coverage. When a community is attacked, media should name the hatred. One hatred has a name. One does not.

6/8 16 of 17 uses of "anti-Muslim" in Edinburgh coverage were caveated suspected, alleged, or a politician's quote. "Antisemitic" in Golders Green coverage: 182 of 185 uses were plain editorial fact. No hedge. No quotes. No attribution needed.

7/8 Five #Muslim men attacked in Edinburgh. Not one named in any article. Golders Green victims Shloime Rand and Moshe Shine were named, interviewed and humanised across 29+ articles.

Muslim victims are invisible.

8/8 "Edinburgh: "terror" used 20 times always procedural, "counter-terror cops."

Golders Green: "terror" 472 times, "antisemitic" 185 times, "national emergency" 20 times.

One attack barely made the news. One was a national crisis."