Tamil deaths count for less on the BBC?

According to research by honestreporting.com ,"It is extremely appropriate to highlight the BBC's coverage of the Middle East considering the importance that the BBC attaches to the region. During the conflict, the BBC published, on average, 4.5 articles every day dealing with the fighting. In contrast, BBC coverage of the Sri Lankan government's campaign against the Tamil Tigers group -- a conflict that resulted in an estimated 2,000 civilian deaths in January of 2009 -- produced barely one article a day."

Why the difference in coverage? Are Tamil deaths not as important? Is the possibility that the Sri Lankan government indiscriminately bombs civilians not important?

How do we explain this conundrum? The BBC is made up of journalists and editors. people who live in a democratic system. They are not being forced at gunpoint to report in this manner. When I was studying I used to think about the concept Ideology,or ideas such as Hegemony. I believe that somehow there has grown up an accepted way of looking at the world. A set of filters to make sense of our experiences. It is this set of filters that goes some way to explaining why even a modicum of journalistic objectivity has disappeared. I think of DR Congo and realize that even with the enormous numbers of deaths in that country there is minimal reporting.
This is outrageous.

Just to pat myself on the back. 3 of my pics re the Tamils have made the front page of the demotix news website. I would continue to photograph this protest but I am unable to because of the student Kommisars.