News Watch: US protests, Trump's tariffs, and is Lucy Connolly a 'political prisoner'?
49:28 Share

or text next step to 53342

Carla only has the best tech. Can't connect to network. But she didn't have the best internet. So she got Cox Multigig speeds to power all her... Now, all her tech is... Connected. Give your tech the speed it deserves. Get our top-tier internet with Cox Multigig. Two gig download speeds, individual speeds vary. See cox.com for details.

This is MediaStorm's Newswatch.

You look at some of the fake news on these platforms, there's just so much out there right now. Some breaking news to bring you now. People want to be able to express opinions. I understand that. I have only one objective, which is to make sure the BBC is truly impartial. Well, I don't think that the mainstream media was lying. I think we missed the overarching story.

Welcome to MediaStorms Newswatch, helping you make sense of the mainstream media. I'm Helena Wadia. And I'm Matilda Mallinson. This week's MediaStorms. US protests. Trump's tariffs. And is Lucy Connolly a political prisoner?

Hey, hey. Hi, Matilda. How are you? I'm very excited. What are you excited about? I'm excited because we have a live show coming up and I honestly feel like we've been waiting so long to do a live show and be back in a room with our listeners. I know. I'm so excited. So listeners, we're going to be essentially kicking off the podcast show. It's on Tuesday the 20th of May, 7pm at the Business Design Centre in Islington and tickets are out this Friday at 10am.

But if you are a subscriber to our Patreon, Patreons we love you, we are giving you early access to tickets. We will post that on our Patreon. So please make sure you come and join us. We'll have some very special guests to be announced. So we are excited, but we are also tired. Oh my God. I think the eye bags are like next level today. I'm not going to lie. They are. They are. And I have like industrial strength concealer on.

But this is our penultimate week of the series. We are going to be coming back and it's not going to be a long break. Just a couple of weeks.

Anything before we start Newswatch? Yes. So last week we were talking about whose voices we should be elevating in the post-adolescence mania. And I wanted to actually flag one more organisation, End Sexism in Schools. So they're fighting misogyny in schools, but also campaigning for a gender balanced curriculum. So their research showed that schools are mainly teaching pupils about male perspectives and male achievements.

But their theory is if boys learn about women and girls, they'll understand female perspectives and develop empathy and respect.

What they call a vital part of the puzzle of ending the cycle of violence, standalone RSE lessons, relationship sex education lessons, aren't nearly enough when everyday lessons uphold the current system. That's really cool. I think that that is a really good way forward. And that way, not only the people who are going to sign up to specifically learn about equality and relationships and consent are actually going to get the lessons too.

OK, to begin Newswatch, did you know that there were huge anti-Trump protests last weekend? I didn't know. No, but I'm not surprised because I found out that

that there were anti-Trump administration protests happening in the US because a reality TV star that I follow from a show called Vanderpump Rules, which is honestly an iconic show. Everyone should watch it, but I won't go down that path right now. But she put up an Instagram story photo of her at a protest with a sign saying, hands off our rights. And I was like, oh, wait, there's protests happening? And I was initially embarrassed to say that that's how I found out. But

Once I looked at the news, I was less embarrassed because it didn't like really feature. Yeah, because I follow all the boring conventional news, you know, information sources. And not fun reality TV stars. And not fun reality TV stars. And I'm pretty ignorant on that front. Okay.

OK, so where was this? Was this like a big march on Washington? Well, there was a protest in Washington, but there were also protests in all 50 states. Whoa, so it was like a coordinated national effort. Yes. So these were mass action protests organized by a pro-democracy movement in response to what they call a hostile takeover, an attack on American rights and freedoms. So they say they're demanding an end to this billionaire power grab.

So as much as it is against Trump, it's also against people like Elon Musk. There's not one sole reason that people are protesting. It's a variety of reasons such as the threat to democracy, the slashing of jobs, student deportations, even Trump's tariffs. You know, people are angry. So these were dubbed the hands-off protests. And around 1,400 of them were organized in every U.S. state. Wow.

The largest ones being in like Washington, D.C., New York City. There were also multiple U.S. state representatives speaking at the protests.

Crowd organizers say millions of people turned out to protest across the country. Most media outlets are reporting it as hundreds of thousands. But there is like drone footage of mass protests where you can't even see the street. There's so many people. OK, so hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people coming together to defend democracy. I did not see this on my X feed. And by the way, my X feed is like full of whatever Elon Musk is doing, even though I never have followed him or engaged in any of it.

That just makes me think of when we had riots in the UK last summer and Elon Musk tweeted, civil war is inevitable in the UK. And then that was just all over X and pushed to the top of the X algorithm. Social media, fine. Mainstream media, you said millions were marching. What was the news coverage of this protest like?

OK, so if you Google the hands-off protests now, there's about one article in every major news outlet. The protests were on Saturday, but they barely made any front pages on Sunday or Monday. A perfect example I can give you is from The New York Times. Their front page on Sunday featured a tiny square photograph of the protests in Asheville, N.C., with the words, a day of protest,

Page 18. Page 18. Yeah. So they had covered this on page 18. And this is kind of my point. The coverage is there if you look for it, but it didn't exactly make a splash. And given how much wall-to-wall coverage there is of Trump, his policies, his decisions, his speeches, his administration, you would think that thousands, if not potentially millions, pushing back against that would be covered.

I think there's a lack of due proportionality here. Yeah, it's also a very top-down narrative, you know, taking the headlines from the White House press room and not from the people or the streets. Yes. And so I want to redress the balance here. Here's what protesters had to say about why they attended the hands-off anti-Trump pro-democracy marches. Some of these are from online and some of these spoke to MediaStorm directly.

Because Trump is a traitor. He's betrayed this country. He's betrayed our government and he's betrayed our people. He's betrayed our allies. He sold us out. He's a criminal. Get him out now. Grow a spine, Congress. Hands off means restore what we've had as a democracy.

And so it's being touched in the most dangerous ways. In fact, when we were making our poster and we were saying what to have hands off, we had trouble limiting the list. The list got so long.

between free speech and reproductive rights and social security? I was at the protest in Boston on April 5th. We had really foul weather here. It was just like freezing and started to rain at some point and there was still a

a massive turnout. So it was really great to be there and feel some of the anger that was wafting off of people. I went with a family member who's a Boston native, and he said he hasn't seen anything like this in terms of sheer numbers. I guess I'm not shocked that reporting was buried. Reporting in the Boston Globe especially was like page 11 or something, I think. They did print some sort of

op-ed or collection of letters to the editor of people expressing their concern about that. The thing that I was more surprised by was the inability of the local press

to get a realistic tally of the number of people in attendance. I was looking to the press coverage, not for an understanding of the event, but for factual representations of the size of the event. We saw that Boston Police Department

reported like 30,000 people in attendance and organizers are reporting closer to 100,000. And it is leaving some people feeling like, well, what's the point if this isn't drawing the attention? And the organizers that I speak to and work with are sort of in one of two camps. One is like, we just keep showing up, keep doing this.

And the other one is we need to do something more extreme. A lot of what's happening seems to be corrupt division of power that's not being followed with the founding fathers and what they intended for this country. We are today at a crossroads in history where tyranny and corruption tighten their grip and we are left with a choice. To rise up or to surrender to a corrupt regime hell-bent on remaking America in its image. Elon Musk has got to go, man!

So this story ties in to that whole top-down narrative, the news being dominated by the narratives coming from the top. Let's talk about tariffs. We have been taken for a ride, but it's not just by Donald Trump. Let me guess, by the mainstream media as well? You got it!

And fair enough. There has been complete global meltdown and our hearts do go out to all the reporters pouring over thesauruses to try and find more and more outrageous synonyms for terms like slump or crash or crisis or plummet or breakdown or tumble.

Turmoil or tailspin. How about landslide? Yep. Train wreck. Check. Shitstorm. Cryfest 2025. Glastafuck. Epic fail. Quagmire. Okay, I went too far. Look, it's made it all pretty hard to actually understand what's happening. I have literally read...

a zillion words in the news about tariffs and, you know, why then do I not really understand what they actually are? No, I completely agree. And it's probably because economics makes no sense. Well, apparently not.

So the first media storm that followed so-called Liberation Day last week, which was the day that Donald Trump got so tariff happy, an Antarctic island populated exclusively by penguins got landed with a 10% tariff rate. I saw that. It's so good. It is good. The penguins had no idea what they have done to piss off Donald Trump. What did penguins ever do to you?

But, you know, neither did the people of Lesotho, a fairly hardship African country so small. Trump recently said this about it. Eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI plus in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of.

Or like Madagascar, where three quarters of people live in poverty and now face a 47% tariff on US experts. But seriously, what did the penguins do? Well, apparently, they didn't buy enough things from the USA. Oh, stupid penguins.

And neither did the Syrians, who were apparently too busy being at war with a dictator to buy American goods. And so they now face tariffs of over 40%. Okay, so, but now I'm a little bit confused because aren't Trump's tariffs to do with

punishing countries for charging America too high tariffs. Right. So back to my pre-Penguin point, where was I? Yeah, the first media storm that came after so-called Liberation Day, it was a classic media mistake of compliant language that we've spoken about quite a lot recently at MediaStorm. It says using the same language leaders use to describe their policies, even if it's deliberately manipulative.

Donald Trump billed his reciprocal tariffs, I say that in quotes, as a tit-for-tat measure. You tariff our products at 20%, we'll tariff your products at 20%. He said it again in his Rose Garden announcement. Reciprocal. That means they do it to us and we do it to them. Very simple. Can't get any simpler than that. Were you trying to do a Donald Trump accent? No! You're not going to get a job on SNL anytime soon. Rude. Rude.

Okay, anyway, simple, right? Pretty simple. It may cause global meltdown, but at least it makes sense. Just about. Reciprocal. You tariff us, we'll tariff you. Yeah, except that's not really what is happening. It turns out these tariffs were based on something else entirely. Trade imbalances. So how much we buy from you versus how much you buy from us. Okay, but wait a second, because...

Is it just me, but how are the people of Lesotho supposed to buy as much from America as America buys from them? They're like, what, two hundredths of a size? Yeah, pretty much. And honestly, that kind of logic, it's a little bit too sophisticated for this tariff formula, okay, Helena? Please God tell me I didn't just outsmart the economists currently controlling the global economy. Like, I literally barely passed my maths GCSE. Honestly, yeah, you did. Like, you just found the fault in the formula. Yeah.

Now, look, the media did eventually pick this up, that these were not actually the reciprocal tariffs they were being described to be. And they made some pretty good attempts at breaking it down themselves, looking at its absurdly unequal global impact, also hilariously ridiculing it. I want to quote Ian Dunt in the iPaper. He said, "'You might as well divide the number of apples in your kitchen by the number of bagels and use it to calculate your mortgage rate.'"

to criticize it on political or economic grounds is too generous. It operates below the level of rational thought. Okay, that's really good. Yeah.

But honestly, anyone who tuned out after the first round of headlines, which is quite normal human behavior, especially when it's economic news, they would have no idea just how insane these so-called reciprocal tariffs were because headlines were calling them reciprocal tariffs and journalists were trying to explain them in respectful terms. The New York Times lead story at the time reported the government had imposed, quote,

double-digit tariffs on dozens of other countries that administration officials had said treated the United States unfairly. They also wrote the European Union, China, Britain and India would also face higher reciprocal tariffs based on trading practices that Mr. Trump has deemed unfair. OK, so that is regurgitating the government's characterisation of its own policy. Yeah, before actually questioning it and making sure it checks out.

They even gave Trump credit for restraint, right? Okay, they said Mr. Trump described his approach as kind, saying he was charging other countries only half the reciprocal rate that his administration had calculated should be applied. This is just because they're...

random formula decided to take the random result it came to and randomly divide it by two. This is not because they were like being generous and halving the fair tariff rate. Did they do what the media does, which is basically just put the term reciprocal in quotation marks, which is that classic journalistic get out of jail free card we've been seeing? At this point of the coverage, no. They didn't even use quotation marks for the term reciprocal. Yes, now they are, but at the time, no. Anyway, we have since...

tried to wrong the right, let it be a lesson. But the thing I felt missing in this second week of the tariff apocalypse is the actual real logic behind Trump's supposedly absurd formula. And it is starting to emerge if you look in the right places because Trump's tariffs, as tariffs normally are, will disproportionately be paid for by the poor. But they will be paid for. And what does Trump intend to do with that money? Cut tax.

And he wants to do that in a way that will disproportionately help the rich. It's like a reverse Robin Hood. Exactly. Exactly.

Now, as former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich explained in The Guardian, tariffs are a highly regressive tax, meaning that they disproportionately tax poorer people and tax rich people on a relatively lower rate. So that's like the opposite of income tax, where technically the more you make, the higher rate of tax you pay. Yes, exactly. Now, Trump's administration is claiming that they will make so much money from these tariffs that...

including from US citizens who will pay more on everything they buy, that basically they can eradicate or massively cut income tax. So they will be replacing a progressive taxation with a regressive taxation. As Reich concludes, this would create a giant upward transfer of wealth. Okay, so the tariffs do make sense, just not in the way that we're being told they do. Yes, exactly. And I would like to see that story better told and more simply told.

in our media so that the bulk of us who are pretty economically illiterate but massively impacted by the economy can see through the policies that are deliberately packaged to mislead us and confuse us. Even if that means the media stops and thinks a bit before deciding what they're going to say when a massive story breaks. Yeah, but they're not going to do that, Matilda, because they must say it before everyone else says it or it's not news. That is what news is. What a quagmire.

Just before the break, we wanted to flag your attention to this. So Meta has stolen millions of books. What does that mean? Meta, the company that owns Facebook and WhatsApp, has created its own AI models. But instead of training those AI models themselves, Meta created a shadow library.

So this shadow library contains more than 7.5 million books that may have been used to train Meta's AI models so that AI can essentially reproduce the creative content. Those books have been written by some very famous authors.

And some authors that have been on MediaStorm, like Sophia Smith-Gaylor and Zing Tsing. They did not consent to this and they have not been paid. And by the way, this is not just happening to authors, this is happening to artists, this is happening to journalists.

their content being used to train AI models. And in the case of journalism, a key point is that what will come from it, from AI, will not have gone through the same human levels of fact checking. So what can we do about it? In this case, authors right now are fighting back.

In the US, they filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta. And in the UK last week, there was a protest outside Meta's London office where an open letter was handed in characterising Meta's actions as illegal, shocking and utterly devastating for writers. That's a quote from the Union of the Society of Authors.

So if you want to add your voice to a petition, you can do so on change.org, where the Society of Authors have written to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, demanding that Meta is held to account by the UK government after the allegations of stolen work. We will put a link in the show notes. Let's take a break.

When you think about super successful businesses that are selling through the roof, like Heinz or Mattel, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But there's a secret. The business behind the business making selling simple for them and buying simple for their customers. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify.

You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. What a low price! Do you see that? They have bikes like a whole new Burlington! I can buy two!

I'm saving so much! Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? You'll love the deals. You'll love Burlington. I told you so. So this week, the Telegraph was really tugging on our heartstrings. Oh God, I'm not sure I'm ready for this. Telegraph journalist Alison Pearson. No, no, Matilda, I actually can't.

Alison Pearson. Okay. Sorry. For listeners, Alison Pearson's views include that Brussels is the jihadist capital of Europe and therefore it was great that we left the EU. Transgender identity is an evil trans ideology and wearing a protective face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is demeaning. Just so listeners are aware of who we're dealing with here. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, it gives some context to why this article was written, but I promise this is still a really good media storm story. Okay, okay. I'm locked in now. I'm ready. So she was tugging at our heartstrings with a Telegraph article she'd written titled, I heard the full story of the woman jailed for two years for a tweet. Her injustice shames Britain. This is the story of Lucy Connolly.

Jailed for 31 months. Alison Pearson tweeted her article writing, Lucy Connolly is a political prisoner, not in Russia, here in the UK. Denied bail, given a horribly harsh sentence for a tweet. Prison governors now deny Lucy her right to prison leave.

Free Lucy with a broken heart emoji. Sorry, okay, so this woman, Lucy Connolly, is in prison for tweeting. I mean, if that's the case, then maybe I should join the free Lucy broken heart emoji brigade. Just before you do, let's take a little reminder of what poor little political prisoner Lucy actually did. Lucy Connolly was sentenced to prison for publishing written material that incited racial hatred.

On the day that three girls were fatally stabbed in Southport at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class by Axl Rudacabana, an act which sparked far-right riots across the UK, Lucy tweeted on Axe, Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. If that makes me racist, so be it.

Okay, I probably won't be joining the Free Lucy Broken Heart Brigade. And by the way, the bastards she's referring to are asylum seekers, people seeking asylum from persecution and war, etc. Okay, so already just from the title of the article and from Alison Pearson's tweet, I

I see a lot of minimization of Lucy's actions. Is that what makes this a media storm? Partly, but it is so much more than that. The whole article is written on the basis that her jail sentence is unjust.

And that is a legitimate argument to make, except the article fails to base itself in fact. It is a piece of journalism that tells us much more about the author's personal opinions than it does about the justice system and the facts of this case. One example.

Alison Pearson writes, having posted the tweet around 8.30pm, Lucy took the family's German pointer, Harley, for a walk, had a chance to think better of what she'd written in the heat of the moment, returned home and deleted her tweet. It must have been visible for less than four hours, but that was enough time for someone to take a screenshot.

Well, she had 10,000 followers and her tweet was viewed 310,000 times. Okay, so that's not just one screenshot up for a couple of hours. No. And one of the worst inaccuracies in this article, I think, is this one. So in passing sentence, the judge in Lucy's case said, when you published those words, you were well aware how volatile the situation was.

This, of course, refers to the far-right riots that sprung up in the wake of the stabbing, based on inaccurate information and conspiracy theory that the stabber was a Muslim asylum seeker who had crossed the channel on a small boat and that his identity was deliberately withheld from the public.

And for people who don't know, that was completely false. Axel Rudikubana is not an asylum seeker, is not Muslim. Right. So a big part of this was the idea that his identity was being withheld because the government doesn't want us to know asylum seekers are all murderous criminals. Right. And in her article, Alison Pearson almost leans into that.

She says,

This situation on social media was extremely volatile. There was widespread anger that such a monstrous attack had been targeted at the most vulnerable members of our society. That was the state Lucy Connolly was in when she posted the 51 words that would ruin her life.

End quote. But the reason Rudokubana was not initially named to the public and that further details pertaining to his identity were not published is because of standard reporting restrictions. This is how it always works.

Police did not name the person they had in custody as they continued to question him and he had not yet been charged. And after the 17-year-old was charged, under British law, a minor cannot be identified until a judge has ruled that the suspect can be named. This is completely standard practice. You will also notice that Pearson wrote, Rudacabana was initially described to a disbelieving public only as a Cardiff...

born choir boy. So the first thing I'd say about this is that Lucy Connolly posted her tweet on the 29th of July. The reporting of Ruda Kavana as a choir boy only came out on the 31st of July. The second thing is that the choir boy quote was reported from a newspaper who had spoken to a neighbor, something that is, yes, wholly unhelpful in this context, but was never a detail released by police or authorities. This was not the official information given to the public.

So to blame that choir boy narrative as the reason Lucy Connolly tweeted exposes the total bias behind this article. A lot of details about this story was brought to my attention by criminal barrister Jamie Hamilton or View from the North on X and Blue Sky. I mentioned him last week as well.

So I just want to quote his message about this article to end. He wrote,

Okay, immediately I feel the need to point a couple of things out. So this article by Alison Pearson is really kind of doing its best to paint Lucy Connolly as misguided rather than racist. It's essentially like a profile of her life.

You know, it's complete with quotes from her friends who are backing up that she's not racist. Quotes from her husband, who is, by the way, a conservative politician, which I really think adds another layer here. The article also has multiple mentions of the family's tragic history of when their child passed away at age 19 months. It's highly sympathetic towards her. And Pearson calls her now criminalised tweet racist.

ugly and a mistake rather than, you know, racist or wrong. But dig a little deeper. There is also history here. Also found on Lucy Connolly's ex-account was a tweet commenting on a sword attack, which read, "'I bet my house it was one of those boat invaders.'"

and a comment on a video posted by Tommy Robinson, which read Somalian, I guess, and that was accompanied by a vomiting emoji. And that was conveniently left out of this soft focus profile in the Telegraph of Lucy Colony's life. Which is disgraceful. But the second thing I want to point out might surprise some listeners. I don't think Lucy Colony should be in jail either.

But that's not because I think there's two-tiered justice against white people or because I'm trying to minimise racist incitement to violence. It's because I have a fundamental problem with carceral justice being posited as the solution to all crimes. We've heard on MediaStorm time and time again that prison does not work and we need to be looking towards systems of rehabilitation and community sentences for non-violent offenders.

And I think it is so sad that this is probably one of the first times that topic has come up in The Telegraph and it's come up in this way. And it's funny because Alison Pearson actually points to other methods of punishment for Lucy Connolly. Release on temporary license, bail, home detention curfew.

You know, Alison points to the strains that prison can put on someone's mental health. She points to the fact that Lucy's a mother and that her husband has a blood disease and therefore she's a carer. All the reasons why prison might not be the best fit for Lucy.

But it's funny, isn't it, that Alison Pearson has never before written a nearly 6,000-word article defending, I don't know, pregnant women in prison for non-violent offences or working-class black boys being sentenced for minor drug charges disproportionately.

I wonder what's different here? What made her do this for this case? Yeah, if you want to understand why our custodial sentencing system is not more reformed and empathetic, you don't have to look that much further than The Telegraph and the tough-on-crime right-wing media. ♪

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. It's tax season, and we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year. Now here's a good number. $100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

The new KFC Dunk It Bucket with juicy original recipe tenders, new mashed potato poppers, crispy fries, plus three sauces that fit right on top of the lid. So you can dunk anywhere. You can dunk at the game. Dunk while security points to the no outside food sign. And dunk as 20,000 people watch you and your Dunk It Bucket get removed from the stadium. Dunk almost anywhere with the new $7 KFC Dunk It Bucket or get the double Dunk It Bucket for $25. Prices and participation vary while supplies last. Taxes, tips, and fees extra.

We've spoken a lot today about proportionality in the media and what stories are getting the attention they deserve. And there's one story I want to centre because I think in the mainstream media churn, it's got lost a little bit. And it's a huge story that is very much in the public interest that we can learn lessons from.

A PhD student at University College London, Chunhao Zhou, was convicted last month of drugging and raping 10 women, three women in London and seven in China between 2019 and 2024. However, because of the fact that Zhou filmed most of his rapes, police have recovered videos of him attacking a further 50 victims,

But they say that they believe his offending group is actually far greater than that. This would make him one of the worst sexual offenders in British history. And now it's been reported that 23 more women have come forward to the police with allegations against him. The scale of that is incredible when you're saying that. 53.

At least. 50 women raped. It's like the Gisele Pelico story in reverse, right? There was global outrage and media coverage because of the number of men who were involved. And everyone's like, oh, so shocked that so many men could be involved in this. But 50 women raped. What's another 50 women raped? There should, yeah, there should be way more coverage of that. I agree. But.

But crucially, it needs the right type of coverage. We have to talk about intersectionality here. Many of Zhou's victims, if not all so far, were Chinese and in the UK, part of London's Chinese student community. This means a lot of them may have been foreign nationals when studying here.

We already know, right, that reporting rape or sexual assault to the police can be a nightmare. Well, it's even more challenging for foreign nationals to report sexual crimes in the UK. As reported in the BBC, Sarah Yeh,

a trustee at Southeast and East Asian Women's Association in London, said it would be daunting for anyone from overseas to be traumatised by rape and then have to navigate the British legal system and the NHS or even access the services provided for victims. Right, they may not understand their rights or what resources are available to them.

She added, as well as being concerned about repercussions, negative impacts on their studies, shame brought on themselves and their families and potential legal challenges. Actually, you know, in MediaStorm's recent investigation about sexual assault at universities, the student we spoke to who used the pseudonym Charlotte, she was a rape survivor who really struggled to know how to report it also as an international student and student of colour. Here's what she said on that.

I felt so alone, although my pseudonym is Charlotte. And it sounds like, I don't know, I might come from somewhere in Europe or something, but I'm an international student, like 70% of the student body is

And we travel across the globe to study here and be immersed in this academic environment. I just felt like I was just put in the middle of the ocean with no support. So I just felt very alone in navigating this whole process.

That was Charlotte speaking in Media Storm's investigation, Abuse in Academia, Our University's Protecting Predatory Professors. Now we've seen these factors of intersectionality play out in some of the cases of these brave women who have come forward against Zoe. Beth, not her real name, a pseudonym, was raped by Zoe in 2023 and had tried to report the crime to the Metropolitan Police soon afterwards.

But then she decided not to pursue things because she felt unsure of UK law and had been left feeling discouraged after her initial interaction with the police included a poor translation of her 999 call. Oh, that's so predictable and so sad. Mm-hmm.

Another victim survivor, Rachel, again a pseudonym, says she was drugged and raped by Zhou in 2022 in his hometown called Dongguan in China. Rachel says that Dongguan is a small place and there was always a risk that people she knew, her parents, relatives, colleagues, would find out and think she was...

And she quotes, indiscreet. Now, of course, many survivors of sexual violence can feel shame and fear of their family finding out. But there is also, once again, an added layer here of cultural sensitivities, cultural shame. I know from being in a South Asian community, there's a lot of shame that surrounds sex in general. And we have heard, even on MediaStorm, that it is the same for East Asian communities.

So it sounds like you've found some testimonies of that in the mainstream media. Would you say by and large the coverage has been intersectional in its approach? I think yes, in one particular place. And I wanted to praise some really good coverage of this story from the BBC World Service. Other coverage, I would say, has not given such an understanding of intersectionality.

Because the BBC World Service has a Chinese journalist on this story and as the point of contact for other victims to come forward. And this speaks to a massive reason of why we need diversity within the journalism industry. The BBC World Service also had a button at the top of the article to translate the story so you can read the story in Chinese dialects.

which is so important because police are currently trying to trace other victims of Zoe

And so some might not speak English and they need every opportunity to be found, to be supported and to be heard. Wow. That's pretty cool from the BBC World Service. MediaStorm has done multiple investigations into rape and sexual assault and in every single one of them intersectionality has been a really, really key theme. I just want to shoot back to one of MediaStorm's first episodes called

rape justice, what happens to the 98%, i.e. the 98% of reported rapes that never make it to trial. Queerness was just one example of intersectionality that was explored. And here's what survivor Alison Takos had to say on the matter. There are glaring factual errors on my police report. The date that I reported on my police report is wrong. My address on my police report is wrong.

I knew that they were not going to be helpful. I never knew how unhelpful they would be. I never knew how they were going to like truly ruin my case. The privileges that I hold that allow me to navigate the system are just like seeping out of me. I am a white woman. Can you imagine how Black trans women are treated? How sex workers are treated? Do you think that your queer

your queer identity has had any impact on your experience? So like I used to have very, very short hair at one point in time I shaved it but the FBI told me that I should grow out my hair because a jury would be more likely to believe me because I would be read astray. They would look at me and not ask questions internally and being like, but she looks so gay. Why would men want to rape her? I'm doing it. My hair is very long right now.

So I just wanted to bring a little bit more attention to this huge story and yes, give praise to the BBC World Service, but also say it shouldn't be so rare. This should be standard reporting on this topic.

So when we spoke about it last week,

We were saying, OK, this mass grave has been discovered. What is going to happen now? This is quite clearly, you know, indicating potential war crimes, crimes against humanity. What's going to happen? Well, Israel's initial position was sort of silence, claiming they don't really know about the whereabouts.

Then after this discovery of this grave site, excavated on camera, right, official UN footage, evidencing that these medics had been killed in cold blood. Some had been blindfolded, their hands tied. One body was decapitated. Well, then Israeli foreign affairs minister Gideon Tsar says, well, look, these cars were a prankster.

approaching suspiciously. They may have been ambulances, but they had their headlights off. They didn't have any lights. They were approaching suspiciously. And so the IDF, Israel's army, determined them to be a terrorist threat. Now, firstly, that account, well, that was reported in our media, given headlines, in some cases, direct quoted headlines, explaining the killings according to Israel's justification. What wasn't known then, but is known now, is that footage of the attack existed.

Footage that has since been recovered from a phone of one of the killed medics, which disproves this justification. Specifically, the justification that the vehicles had no headlights or emergency lights on. In a seven-minute video, which is harrowing to watch, the cohort of ambulances, with their emergency lights flashing and their headlights on, are ambushed by Israel's military without warning and showered

with bullets as they fled unarmed from their vehicles. And that's where my media storm is on this story, honestly, because I have seen some shocking headlines. Go on. I'll just read a couple of them out. BBC News. Israel admits mistakes over medic killings in Gaza. The Independent. Israel's military admits it made mistake, in single inverted commas, over killing of Gaza medics. Mistake.

This was not a mistake. If that footage hadn't have been recovered, Israel's account would still be the official narrative. It is not a mistake, right? It is a very carefully designed propaganda line to justify that killing. And by the way...

Since that line was falsified, there's been a change of tack in Israel's strategy of defence. Israel has now said that six of the medics killed were actually Hamas terrorists, unevidenced and denied by the aid organisations that they work for, the International Federation of the Red Cross, the Palestine Civil Defence, the United Nations.

And look, I'm pleased to say that some media have apparently been humbled by their first hoodwinking. This latest claim that they were terrorists has not been widely reported, at least not as a headline statement, massively.

Maybe the media is learning because that was embarrassing. You know, what they did made them look complicit at best, foolish at worst. But this is not a universal lesson. A Sky News headline on Tuesday said, Israeli troops opened fire on ambulances because of perceived threat, preliminary IDF investigation says. Sorry, no. After you totally discredit your integrity and betray a clear agenda...

of whitewashing a probable war crime, your defense does not warrant a word-for-word headline.

Thank you for listening. Tomorrow, our deep dive looks at free speech in the US and beyond. What does it even mean anymore? If you want to support MediaStorm, you can do so on Patreon for less than a cup of coffee a month. The link is in the show notes and a special shout out to everyone in our Patreon community already. We appreciate you so much. If you enjoyed this podcast,

please send it to someone. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow a podcast. So please do tell your friends. You can follow us on social media at Matilda Mal, at Helena Wadia and follow the show via at MediaStormPod. MediaStorm is an award-winning podcast produced by Helena Wadia and Matilda Mallinson. The music is by Sam Fire.