Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a Killing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#161

Post by mcphage »

wruza wrote: post #72
segmondy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't make such statements if you saw the complete video. To kill unarmed women and children? Sheesh, what would you have written in place of those?

"The government statement makes clear that all these men were arrested, and that they will be given a trial." See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral. You don't have to be neutral, but news do.

> See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral.

That the trial is fair is important, and should not be ditched or glossed over.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#162

Post by mcguire »

sulam wrote: post #71
emmelaich wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them." So, would it be better if they held a trial and then killed them? Does anyone believe that their innocence or otherwise has anything to do with them being killed? Are there circumstances that make you think that the killing of children is OK? It's at least a non-sequitur, possibly self-aggrandising yellow journalism and at worst it could…

You know what gives me the creeps? People who watch that video and read those facts and choose to focus on the tone of the closing tweet.

I feel the story would have been stronger without the cheap emotional shot at the end.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#163

Post by watwut »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #155
mcphage wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break. Where did you make that up?

Most news agencies claim, on paper, to aim for impartiality. Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting since emotions generally imply a moral response to something, which in turn is quickly stepping away from impartiality. [1] BBC: Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. [2] NPR: Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be…

Emotions don't imply moral response. Emotions may be caused also by empathy, fear, threat, gain and so on. Impartial and independent are not the same as insisting that "both sides are the same" either.

In here, it is a reported a fact that killed women and children received no trial and no presumption of innocence. It highlights asymmetry between trial soldiers will (theoretically) receive and what they have done. That is perfectly fine.

If the reporting made you feel like what soldiers did is symmetrical to them being on trial, then the reporting would be biased.

> Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

That does not imply consumer should feel neutral about those repugnant views. If consumers feel neutral after hearing repugnant views, then journalist sugarcoated those views to make them look more innocent then they are.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#164

Post by TangoTrotFox »

mcphage wrote: post #160
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most news agencies claim, on paper, to aim for impartiality. Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting since emotions generally imply a moral response to something, which in turn is quickly stepping away from impartiality. [1] BBC: Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. [2] NPR: Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be…

> Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting "Impartial" is not the same as "unemotional". Part of the job of the news is to put what happens in context—not just what happened, but why it matters. News organizations aren't striving to be unfeeling automatons merely spitting out facts.

Here [1] are a wide variety of other articles from the NYT covering famous events throughout history. I think you'll find that the incredible reputation they built up was indeed driven by striving to do little other than impartially report on the facts. Which, in the past, they did an excellent job of. It sounds simple, but in many ways it's perhaps the hardest thing to do. Both from a business perspective, and from a human one.

This [2] is an absolutely phenomenal article by Robert Kaiser, "The Bad News About the News." Kaiser worked at the Washington Post for more than 50 years as a reporter and editor, leaving only shortly after Bezos purchased the company. It gets into all the facets of the rise and fall of the media, and why things have changed so markedly. I don't really think I can do it justice with cliff notes, other than to give it a strong recommendation if you're really interested in the history of all of this.

[1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/samp...

[2] - http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/bad-...

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#165

Post by nmeofthestate »

voltagex_ wrote: post #90
stevenjohns wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are plenty of people doing open source data gathering and investigations. It's pretty interesting. Bellingcat is one of such orgs. Bellingcat is also a great example of what it shouldn't be. Most of what is produced is misleading at best. Some of the core "experts" (i.e Dan Kaszeta) are closer to propaganda generators than genuine researchers or informed sources.

Interesting - looks like I follow bellingcat, but I can't remember why. Have you got any information on bias or counter points?

I know of them through their work on the Skripal poisoners' passports (uncovering evidence that they're GRU agents).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45656004

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#166

Post by TangoTrotFox »

watwut wrote: post #163
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most news agencies claim, on paper, to aim for impartiality. Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting since emotions generally imply a moral response to something, which in turn is quickly stepping away from impartiality. [1] BBC: Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. [2] NPR: Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be…

Emotions don't imply moral response. Emotions may be caused also by empathy, fear, threat, gain and so on. Impartial and independent are not the same as insisting that "both sides are the same" either. In here, it is a reported a fact that killed women and children received no trial and no presumption of innocence. It highlights asymmetry between trial soldiers will (theoretically) receive and what they have done. Th…

Impartial reporting does not mean trying to make the reader remain emotionless or avoid coming to judgement. Facts themselves will frequently stir strong emotions. For instance in this incident even the most impartial reporting of the facts is likely to leave most readers with nothing short of disgust for the alleged offenders. The facts speak for themselves.

An excellent resource I linked above is this [1]. That's a series of historic articles from the NYT on famous events throughout history. You'll invariably find quite impartial articles, yet the facts themselves again speak quite loudly. This [2], for instance, is their reporting on the sinking of the Titanic. That is just an incredible piece of reporting. And though there are absolutely 0 emotional cues used or even implied, one can nonetheless 'feel' the story through the facts alone.

[1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/samp...

[2] - https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/archives/Disasters-Tit...

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#167

Post by DoctorOetker »

Could BBC please share the code for matching mountain ridges with locations?

They claim that the first mountain ridge was located by a tip from a Cameroonian source. Here they verify the ridge with the mountain ridges from a height map.

But later on without mentioning any tip or source they "found" an Channel4 news report in archives with again a mountain ridge match. I consider 3) possibilities:

1) They manually watched all the footage from the last few years in that area, freeze framing them whenever they see a mountain ridge, then manually trace it. I don't believe this is what happened, that's too many man hours.

2) They knew through other means (perhaps camera gps location metadata, perhaps report description/summary) that the report video was taken near the massacre video. Because of this metadata/textual data they were able to realize they had nearby footage of an outpost by querying for the massacre location. But then they fail to mention this trivial step and make a bit of a show by highlighting some features and again a mountain ridge. So in this case they have a database of archive footage and filter by location/time.

3) They have automated software for isolating mountain ridge profiles from footage (perhaps edge detection? remove all edges that don't appear to undergo rigid body motion? but how filter clouds etc?), and matching software for locating where on the heightmap it the footage was made. In this case it is explainable without ridiculous man hours or ridiculous showmanship (instead of mentioning say GPS coordinate metadata of the journalism camera). But in this case perhaps BBC could share this code with the public?

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#168

Post by hi41 »

The footage made me very sad. The people have to live in extreme poverty and on top of that hardship they also have to suffer such unspeakable violence. BBC has done a great job of bringing the war criminals to justice.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#169

Post by PeterisP »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #4

This answers all the questions but why.

You get to that stage after this one; this part tells you where to look, but to get to the reasons you need boots on the ground talking to the involved people. Possibly after capturing them, which seems to have happened after this investigation.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#170

Post by dingoegret »

dang wrote: post #20
dingoegret wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christian militias like the one seen in the video commit all sorts of atrocities in Africa. Honestly the video is not even as horrific as other christian atrocities committed and ongoing in the Central African Republic against Muslim minorities or the raping and pillaging in South Sudan.

Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN, so please don't bring it in here.

What flamewar? I'm just mentioning the facts of the case. When ISIS was around this board lit up like a pinball machine about islam. Now that it's christianty suddenly it's hush hush. Haha what a bigoted shit hole
Post reply on HN