Originally posted by lasersailor184
Out of 645 words of the article, only 10 words covered the kids throwing rocks at the soldiers.
176 words of the article describe in detail what the soldiers did.
If the bias isn't clear enough for you, I'll lay out some specific examples.
You miss out the elephant in the room in your examination of bias. The article has precisely no words as to why the kids were throwing rocks at the soldiers, so we have no idea if their actions are justified or not, and whether they deserve to be dragged off, handcuffed and then beaten. What are they protesting? I don't know; do you?
The real media bias is that the West doesn't know and doesn't care what the Iraqis' side of the story is - the US & UK just care whether it makes the Brits look bad (although next to the crime of the invasion and occupation, this beating session is just a drop in the ocean). No one has even thought to ask why these unarmed kids are throwing stones at heavily armed soldiers. They have been dehumanised so effectively by Western propaganda, that no one even bats an eye: they are Iraqis, therefore they throw stones is the simplisitic bias.
And the success of Western propaganda is reflected in this thread - several have called for the murder of unarmed teenagers, for throwing stones. Others have praised the restraint of the UK troops in not killing them. No one has said that beating people when they're down on the ground and handcuffed is both unecessary and counterproductive (in that it breeds hatred and conflict - qv the LA riots). And no one has wondered why they were throwing stones: no one cares, and it's not mentioned.
Which is especially odd, given that the one remaining on-message excuse for the invasion that isn't demonstrably false is that the US & UK were so concerned about the Iraqis' welfare that they wanted to liberate them from an oppressive police state with beatings, torture and other uncivilised stuff, to try a taste of Western freedom and democracy(TM).
