i live in the uk and the amount of times people srgue about the bbc being politically biased is funny
This is probably just a use of different words to not sound repetitive.
Before anyone starts screaming at me. I’m not taking sides.
The whole thing is fucked and I don’t know enough about it all to form an educated opinion. Ethnic genocide does appear to be what’s happening with my limited knowledge and that is insane, but even in this day and age I am not surprised in the least. That’s as far as my opinion goes on the matter.
This is probably just a use of different words to not sound repetitive.
Then why do they only do it in the same way, every time, and for other western powers? For example, this is from 2005:
“On the March 18 CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts gave these figures: “Today, U.S. deaths number more than 1,500. There are no exact figures for Iraqi fatalities, but estimates are for every American killed, 11 Iraqis died.” In other words, more than 16,500 Iraqi deaths.”
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, but decades of examples are clearly a system pattern.
This is probably just a use of different words to not sound repetitive.
Then the BBC could have said something like “More than 500 people were slain in Gaza.” They should have used a word that implies that the more than 500 people were actively put to death somehow, like killed or slain.
Keep in mind that the BBC are journalists; they literally do this for a living. Even if it was an innocent mistake, which I 1000% do not believe it is, it would still be an egregious fuck-up. But we know it’s not a fuck-up…
Then the argument would have been about died/slain.
No one is imagining 500 deaths in a string of events is people peacefully passing away in the night.
It would have been killed/slain, which are pretty equivalent.
Passive vs active language does make a difference in emotion reaction to things.
“died” from a health ministry implies a broader context of potential causes of death than “killed.”
