People hate it when confronted with reality - they sit in their little bubbles, surrounded with the same echo chamber yapping away to them and telling them what to think. Then they get out, meet new people - and see their world and world view come crumbling down around them.1. No, whether someone is a 'victim' should be ascertained before broadcast. Let me put that another way: if someone is professing to be a victim then their (alleged) persecutor should be provided with an equal, unbiased, right of reply.
What we're seeing the BBC do too often is present a narrative rather than an opportunity to debate an unfairness and so reach some form of remediation/conclusion.
Too often, victim status is asserted on behalf of the victim in order to reinforce a narrative. In fact, one could reasonably at the moment, I think, go as far as to assert that the BBC is seeking out 'victims' who suit its narratives. The fair responses which should be allowed are either simply not invited/aired, or those who attempt to respond are shouted down or vilified.
To refer to one of my recent posts, that's why I've lost trust.
2. Racism is not a meaningless word. Yes, it's about hatred and bias but it has as its base ethnicity so it's a specific form of hatred/bias.
However, it is well on its way back to becoming a meaningless word because of the way it is used in the MSM, which includes the BBC. I thought we'd got past the meaningless/perverted use of the word when Labour got itself unelected but what we're seeing at the moment is an attempt to reassert 'racism' as a useful catch-all term with which to stifle debate.
My black lady friend has moved out of the South London echo chamber into the (relatively) leafy suburbs and has brought with her her constantly reasserted assertions. She's now having to learn a) that not nearly everyone in the suburbs is a white racist b) that 'white privilege' is a catch-all and therefore derogatory term which some people quite rightly are offended by and c) that some of those 'privileged' white people haven't had it as easy as her, and that to assert white privilege to such people is going to provoke a reaction.
The problem is that if you're steeped (or have been) in PC-speak, generalisations flow only one way. So-called 'white fragility' is just another construct designed to deflect from what is actually righteous indignation over being pigeon-holed.
The conversation ended with her in tears and asking me if I thought she was intelligent. My response was that my opinion doesn't, or shouldn't matter to her. My sole right, or role, is to judge her as a person and how she behaves towards me and others - and her ambition, in fact both of our ambitions, should be to see people as people and not use skin colour as the first and overriding criterion.
I liked your tale by the way - it's always good when you make a