O/T:- Media Bias

[sidders]

The media never reported on an arrest, a trial, a verdict or sentencing on Jimmy Savile because they never happened.

Instead the allegations were ignored or covered up. Ignored for decades, so he carried on.

Savile is a good case in point, Elite. The reason no one in the media went for him until he had died was that it was a well-known fact that he was in a position to sue for defamation and had the wealth and background (such a committed charitable person) to contest any published rumours.
An area where so many posters on this fred go wrong is in conflating all media organs together. Some are more responsible and responsive than others. For example, Private Eye will go ahead and publish and damn the consequences if they are confident of their material. Even so, sometimes they lose in court and they retain a substantial fund for legal fights.
Take Lucy Letby. Without actually framing her as guilty before the court hearing, several newspapers published stories that revealed background which was fairly damning and eventually became lawyer fodder. She is to be retried for other murders but the MSM have targeted her so heavily that it's hard to believe a jury can start from a neutral point.
Brand's 'victims'(or so they claim) are publicising his personal guilt and several organs have seized on this. Yes, their first port of call should be the police but the police record in dealing with this kind of material is not great and, boy, is it slow!
The sad truth is that readers in their millions love this kind of s h i t so it makes money, which is a principal factor in selling newspapers rather than them marketing their integrity.
El Sid