newspapers and On Orlandonewspapers

The other horror this past week (happening while I was too busy) was the appalling Islamist terrorist attack on gay people in Orlando.

That was another atrocity which it didn't feel remotely right to post about at the time - despite the rest of the world seeming to rush in regardless.

Bloggers are too often guilty of rushing in, abruptly judging and then fulminating furiously about things. It's a regrettable tendency, and - despite trying my best - I've not been entirely innocent of it myself over the years. (Sue, in contrast, has been entirely innocent of it).

And when it comes to blogging about BBC bias, the even-more-regrettable tendency is to end up, in the wake of every major atrocity, sounding as if we think the guiltiest party of all is the BBC and then, 'as a result', making feverish claims about the BBC's utter wickedness.....

.....such as one (genuine and confident) prediction I saw from a seasoned anti-BBC, anti-Islam blogger firmly asserting that the BBC would "tell us" that the victims, being gay, "deserved it, {as} they so offended Muslim sensibilities".....

.....thus, I fear, risking the entirely reasonable charge that 'we've' completely lost any sense of perspective.

Looking back as coolly as possible, I'd say that the BBC's initial coverage - as the story broke - was 'fair enough' (or at least the little bit I saw of it).

I monitored it at the time and found that - though the corporation wasn't first off the mark - the BBC was quite quick to report that the police suspected the killer of having "leanings" towards Islamic terrorism.

And, despite the subsequently pulling by the BBC of the 'the BBC has learned' card (after many other internet outlets had pipped them to the post by around half an hour), the BBC was also fairly quick to report the killer's (Muslim) name.

Plus, as I also recorded at the time, that night's main BBC One evening news bulletin) did repeatedly report the killer's possible links to Islamic groups, including Islamic State, and mentioned the killer's Afghan heritage.

And when the BBC reporter, inevitably, brought in Donald Trump at least she did it with a modicum of 'balance':

And as people call for calm after this devastating attack we have heard from Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, who said that this all proves that he was right about Islamic terrorism. Now, some people say that Mr. Trump is just stoking fear and playing politics at a tense time in America; others say that he has a point and that more needs to be done to contain the terror threat on home soil.

The next morning's Today, however, did largely hunker down onto 'safe' BBC issues such as gun control (a subject I've not heard dwelt on in the BBC's coverage of the murder of Jo Cox) - though, that said, Marco Rubio did appear on the programme to raise 'uncomfortable' questions about the Muslim angle (the programme's one concession to that angle).

I hadn't (and haven't) the time to monitor anywhere near enough of it to judge, so the question stands: Was the BBC biased in its coverage of the Orlando massacre of gay people by a Muslim fanatic?

I'm willing to stand corrected.