Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

Certain governments are sure to have cordial relations with the Sudanese rebels (mutual interests in opposing the activities of the Russian-backed Sudanese government), and those governments would have the intel and logistics needed to introduce a Ukrainian team into Sudan. Anything not in Russian territory would be fair game.

[Strongpoint]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo

A very hard-to-watch documentary about Mariupol. For USA (or VPN) only.

[Random_Dragon]

A very hard-to-watch documentary about Mariupol. For USA (or VPN) only.

Hard to watch in the sense of morbid/heartbreaking, or hard to watch in the sense of inaccurate/biased? Probably useful to know before giving it a watch.

[ChairmanPoo]

A very hard-to-watch documentary about Mariupol. For USA (or VPN) only.

Hard to watch in the sense of morbid/heartbreaking, or hard to watch in the sense of inaccurate/biased? Probably useful to know before giving it a watch.

Hard to watch in the sense that you need to set up a VPN

[martinuzz]

That's weird. I can't watch it either from the Netherlands. Didn't know USA did that kind of censorship

[Strongpoint]

That's weird. I can't watch it either from the Netherlands. Didn't know USA did that kind of censorship

It is distribution rights, not censorship.

[MaxTheFox]

In the age of stupid region-locking, a VPN of some kind (even the shittiest free VPN) is a must ngl. The internet is borderline unusable without them.

[Lord Shonus]

This is a documentary created by the American Public Broadcasting System. The nature of this entity means that distribution is only automatically authorized in the US.

[Starver]

Regardless of whether I could/need to jump on a VPN to get access to region-locked content, I don't actually blindly follow youtube links with minimal description (and, when I'm on mobile data, I don't follow them at all[1]).

You really need an attempt at more info in the "executive summary". Especially if you think they might never actually watch it anyway. - This is a general call to all posters (knowing that I might occasionally be somewhat taciturn about links (rarely to Youtube) that might be insufficiently explained even by the hover-text), not just this instance.


[1] I might "open in new tab" for the linking post/page, so I can get on with reading and (when I remember![2]) come straight back to it when I'm returned to wifi with time to spare... assuming an hour, just in case it's a full documentary).

[2] Just checked, I've got a "what tv shows are you currently watching?" and three "Ameripols" sitting in this state, at least, all look to be more than a week of vintage and I ought to run through them shortly...

[Strongpoint]

Russian actress killed in Ukrainian strike on event for troops
Fresh news from BBC

Victoria Amelina: Ukrainian writer dies after Kramatorsk strike 
And some old news from BBC

Aren't those headlines cute? A Russian performing for invaders on a military object in a foreign country getting a missile on her head - killed

A Ukrainian eating in a completely civilian diner getting the same - died.

I am so... sooooooo tired of this kind of stuff during the past years...

[Loud Whispers]

Russian actress killed in Ukrainian strike on event for troops
Fresh news from BBC

Victoria Amelina: Ukrainian writer dies after Kramatorsk strike 
And some old news from BBC

Aren't those headlines cute? A Russian performing for invaders on a military object in a foreign country getting a missile on her head - killed

A Ukrainian eating in a completely civilian diner getting the same - died.

I am so... sooooooo tired of this kind of stuff during the past years...

That's more to do with the timeline of death rather than an editorial stance, the Russian actress was killed in the strike whilst the Ukrainian writer died in hospital after the strike. Beeb can hardly be called pro-russian war

[Strongpoint]

Russian actress killed in Ukrainian strike on event for troops
Fresh news from BBC

Victoria Amelina: Ukrainian writer dies after Kramatorsk strike 
And some old news from BBC

Aren't those headlines cute? A Russian performing for invaders on a military object in a foreign country getting a missile on her head - killed

A Ukrainian eating in a completely civilian diner getting the same - died.

I am so... sooooooo tired of this kind of stuff during the past years...

That's more to do with the timeline of death rather than an editorial stance, the Russian actress was killed in the strike whilst the Ukrainian writer died in hospital after the strike. Beeb can hardly be called pro-russian war

Perhaps, but that dead vs killed thing is rather common
Dozens dead as air strike hits Ukraine funeral wake

I'd very much prefer a "Dozens were killed by a Russian airstrike" type of headline. Headlines have a serious emotional impact.

Also, I don't even understand why the death of some Russian nobody morale-booster performer deserves an article on BBC. It is not like she was a pop star or something.

[EuchreJack]

Kill 10 nobodies...nobody cares.

Kill 1 precious little snowflake...ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!!!!!!!

...media runs on clickbait.

[Starver]

I'm only just beginning to get the inkling of what bothers Strongpoint, here. But I don't see it.

Man dies in shootout with police (UK)
Flooding/floods have killed people in Kenya
People in car killed when it crashes and explodes on US/Canada border
Frenzied knife attack continued even after the victim had died (South Korea)

Being immersed in English, I do understand the difference between passive and active voice (if that's it). But there's a lot of linguistic leeway, just because we like varying the way we phrase things and also use a broad breadth of stolen borrowed vocabulary and grammatical forms. All the above could have been switched between kill and die without really changing the feeling of the article. "...man killed...", "...people have died...", "...people in car die...", "...even after killing the victim...".

(The "Fan dies at concert" articles I came across couldn't have been written as "...killed at", however. This side of any sort of "gross corporate manslaughter" rulings, at least. Other than that, I used the first few articles that looked like they might mention "kill/die", and the primary use (paraphrased as needed).

And the last had "killed" and "killing" in another bit, e.g., which might have prompted the stylistic variation to choose "died" to avoid too much internal repitition. As well as individual reporters (assigned randomly/by being the duty reporter for the given time/location/subject) perhaps having a personal preference to one form of language, the opposite can(/will?) also be possible. Perhaps they like to not stick to the one version. Within an article (including paragraphs or phrases that ended up cut out by subeditors tightening it up for publication, who might or might not switch the words used for their own reasons), or between subsequent write-ups, treatments and incidents reported (that you might or might not have seen).


Or am I missing a huge actual bias, that even I'm not immune to? And I, of course, don't know how a professional translator would accurately and idiomatically render the English into your own language. Given how much the language used can shape perception... And English is a mongrel language.

[Loud Whispers]

Perhaps, but that dead vs killed thing is rather common
Dozens dead as air strike hits Ukraine funeral wake

I'd very much prefer a "Dozens were killed by a Russian airstrike" type of headline. Headlines have a serious emotional impact.

BBC very much tries to avoid overly emotional headlines. It's not a private media company but a state funded one, so they try to avoid clickbait tier headlines. More focused on reporting the news than sensationalising it. Compare that to headlines which have been deliberately underplayed at CNN, e.g. "explosion at refugee camp kills dozens" without mentioning that the explosion was caused by an air strike. Evidently whether you wrote "dozens dead after explosion at refugee camp" or "dozens killed" it's more important to establish the cause of death. And in both cases the BBC makes clear the cause. Especially since as per the previous article, they use "dozens dead as air strike hits ukraine funeral wake" because they were reporting on a case where rescue attempts were ongoing and the total dead was yet to be known. It's fairly standard for BBC editorial policy

Manchester attack: 22 dead and 59 hurt in suicide bombing, 23 May 2017

In the end there were 22 dead and over 1,000 injured and if you think they choose to write the headline as "22 dead" instead of "22 killed" because the BBC is sympathetic to ISIS I have an edible hat to sell you

Also, I don't even understand why the death of some Russian nobody morale-booster performer deserves an article on BBC. It is not like she was a pop star or something.

Because it's news?

Putin encouraged Russian celebrities to support his war at the front. One of these celebrities and at least two dozen marines got killed by a HIMARS strike. The reaction to Russian authorities allowing Russian celebrities and a high concentration of Russian soldiers to congregate under missile range was negative, even amongst pro-war bloggers. I had never heard of this Polina but you can bet everyone in Russia will hear of her now that she's died