The BBC, for all it’s issues, still follows basic rules of journalistic integrity with regards to facts.
If the BBC can’t independently verify something through their own trusted channels (and multiple at that), they won’t state something as fact, they’ll just state the claim and say who made the claim.
It’s not disrespectful, or suggesting that party is lying, it’s just how good journalism is carried out.
As for why discussing how deadly the effects of the disaster have been, I imagine that’s because people reading the article are concerned about the potential deadly effects of damage to the current radiation shield, and so some background is useful here.
Again, the BBC can’t truly verify how many died, we only have our own nation’s educated guesses coupled with the likely intentionally inaccurate numbers released by the USSR, and it’s difficult to pin exact causes on some long term effects on an individual basis, like an increased cancer rate.
I would be surprised if these numbers weren’t disputed, and so as it’s relevant to bring up the deadly effects of the disaster, the responsible thing to do is to also mention that the actual number of casualties is disputed.
Good journalism isn’t telling us what to think, feel or believe, good journalism is attempting to give us the unvarnished facts, claims, or what information we do have, which are pertinent to understanding the situation ourselves.
The story also goes on to say about how the deaths caused by the soviet-era disaster cause is disputed. How is that a pertinent thing to add?
It’s not disputed those are just different parts of the same IAEA report. 2 people died in the explosion, 28 of radiation poisoning, 1 from a heart attack, so 31 known, then 19 with high radiation exposure died years later for ambiguous reasons, so 50 potential direct accident deaths. And then they estimated about 4,000 as the total eventual cancer deaths.
…but none of that pertains to the current situation.
Custodianship of the site is a duty inherited from Moscow at the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say in raising it without making that clear might cause a reader to blame Ukraine for it, and not the government of the nation they are fighting. Yes, Russia and the USSR are different entities, but it’s clear Putin sees the USSR as a model to strive for.
Intentional or not, I saw it as prejudicing the reader against Ukraine with irrelevant information out of context.
There’s a video of it hitting.
There’s photos of the damage
There’s photos of the drone remnants
So why does the headline characterise it as hearsay?
The story also goes on to say about how the deaths caused by the soviet-era disaster cause is disputed. How is that a pertinent thing to add?
The BBC, for all it’s issues, still follows basic rules of journalistic integrity with regards to facts.
If the BBC can’t independently verify something through their own trusted channels (and multiple at that), they won’t state something as fact, they’ll just state the claim and say who made the claim.
It’s not disrespectful, or suggesting that party is lying, it’s just how good journalism is carried out.
As for why discussing how deadly the effects of the disaster have been, I imagine that’s because people reading the article are concerned about the potential deadly effects of damage to the current radiation shield, and so some background is useful here.
Again, the BBC can’t truly verify how many died, we only have our own nation’s educated guesses coupled with the likely intentionally inaccurate numbers released by the USSR, and it’s difficult to pin exact causes on some long term effects on an individual basis, like an increased cancer rate.
I would be surprised if these numbers weren’t disputed, and so as it’s relevant to bring up the deadly effects of the disaster, the responsible thing to do is to also mention that the actual number of casualties is disputed.
Good journalism isn’t telling us what to think, feel or believe, good journalism is attempting to give us the unvarnished facts, claims, or what information we do have, which are pertinent to understanding the situation ourselves.
Like how they covered the white Swedish guy shooting up a school by putting a headline photo of a middle eastern immigrant.
It’s the Russia part that they can’t verify, as Russia deny doing it
So make the headline “Chernobyl hit by suspected Russian drone” and make that clear.
They probably a/b tested some headlines and this one got the most clicks.
It’s not disputed those are just different parts of the same IAEA report. 2 people died in the explosion, 28 of radiation poisoning, 1 from a heart attack, so 31 known, then 19 with high radiation exposure died years later for ambiguous reasons, so 50 potential direct accident deaths. And then they estimated about 4,000 as the total eventual cancer deaths.
…but none of that pertains to the current situation.
Custodianship of the site is a duty inherited from Moscow at the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say in raising it without making that clear might cause a reader to blame Ukraine for it, and not the government of the nation they are fighting. Yes, Russia and the USSR are different entities, but it’s clear Putin sees the USSR as a model to strive for.
Intentional or not, I saw it as prejudicing the reader against Ukraine with irrelevant information out of context.
You already know why.