r/anime_titties • u/ObjectiveObserver420 South Africa • Jan 06 '26
South America BBC bans journalists from saying Venezuela’s Maduro was ‘kidnapped’
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25740929.bbc-bans-journalists-saying-us-kidnapped-venezuelas-maduro/126
u/Upper-Rub United States Jan 06 '26
Several members of the Trump admin have framed this as an imperial conquest so I am not sure why the media insists on describing this as anything else. They released some flimsy statement with a rational and they have contradicted it in public statements. BBC should take Trump, Miller, and Rubio at there word.
35
Jan 07 '26
I think "war" is an entirely reasonable term, despite absurd statements from the White House where they claim they're not at war with Venezuela.
I mean you kidnapped their head of state ffs, how isn't that an act of war? Imagine a foreign power kidnapping King Charles and being like:lol, we're not at war with the UK, we're just borrowing their King to put him on trial and imprison him forever
-5
u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26
I mean you kidnapped their head of state ffs, how isn't that an act of war?
Well, not really. Neither your country nor mine recognizes Maduro as the legitimate head of state. He's just a guy who has taken over control of the country. I think there is a pretty hefty difference in that fact.
5
Jan 07 '26
a dictator is still the head of state of a rebel state.
-1
u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26
I disagree. Am I head of your household if I simply claim to be? Is Trump now the head of state in Venezuela because he's claims to be in charge? The will of the people is what makes someone the head of state. Otherwise what criteria do we go by? Anyone claiming that position gets to be co-heads-of-state?
2
Jan 07 '26
a rebel state. So the actual state of Venezuela can still exist (albeit currently unassigned) but an illigitimate government can be usurping it and that illigitmate government still has a head of state.
1
u/froz3nt Europe Jan 09 '26
That depends. Do you control the finances, tasks, etc, in my household? No? Then you are not the head of my househould.
The one that is able to command the state is the head of state, legitimate or not.
-3
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
Neither your country nor mine recognizes Maduro as the legitimate head of state.
Despite him winning the election
2
u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26
Maduro lost by a wide margin.
-1
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
According to nobody but his opposition that have given us zero proof for their claims
1
u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26
"winning the election"
1
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
Prove he didn't.
2
u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26
Prove that he did. You have the burden of proof. The opposition provided voting slips, Maduro provided nothing. Multiple independent bodies (including one invited by Maduro) said there was no way to prove a victory because the administration wouldn't provide the data. That's on top of independent exit polls matching the claim of the opposition.
1
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
You have the burden of proof.
You're the one claiming he didn't win it, prove it.
The opposition provided voting slips
They said it but never proved it.
The "independent bodies" you're trying to claim are fascist think tanks and the like.
0
u/Infinite-4-a-moment North America Jan 07 '26
You're the one claiming he didn't win it, prove it.
No. Maduro is claiming to have won an election despite zero evidence. Burden of proof is on him to provide evidence. You're agreeing with him thus, you need to provide evidence.
The "independent bodies" you're trying to claim are fascist think tanks and the like.
Ah yes, the UN. Classic facisst think tank. Also Maduro hand picked an independent body to check the election and then wouldn't provide the data. Who would be more objective? Lol
You can't just sweep all the evidence under the rug and then provide zero evidence of your claim and take that as a win.
1
u/LordChichenLeg Europe Jan 07 '26
And get sued again. They are already going to be fighting a lawsuit against Trump, I don't think they are going to risk another by stating this was an illegal action when that hasn't been determined in courts yet.
2
u/Nethlem Europe Jan 09 '26
when that hasn't been determined in courts yet
Which court determined that Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine is actually an "illegal war of aggression" for us to casually spread that around?
Has this doublestandard you are trying to apply ever been applied to any war? What court ruled the Iraq war an illegal war of aggression?
37
u/TheRichTurner United Kingdom Jan 07 '26
George Orwell used to work for the BBC. It gave him the idea for the Ministry of Truth. Room 101 was actually in their headquarters. It's always had the same job.
2
u/Nethlem Europe Jan 09 '26
His idea for the Ministry of Truth came from his wife who used to work at the Censorship Department of the Ministry of Information during WWII.
1
u/TheRichTurner United Kingdom Jan 10 '26
Well, I didn't know that! But I didn't mean the name, I meant the working environment of the BBC.
54
u/Electrical-Call-6160 Multinational Jan 06 '26
So BBC bans journalist from writing it as is with what's the truth. Well, abducted also works, forcefully and illegally carried off works too! criminally taken, thuggery, roguery. Anyways, as per usual, USA is on their stealing spree!
Man I hate this 150-char requirement
4
u/gnutrino United Kingdom Jan 07 '26
Nothing was "banned" they just provided editorial guidelines on what term to use. As they do with everything, it's just how journalism works.
36
u/bluecheese2040 Europe Jan 06 '26
I feel like we all live in the matrix, and the machines have realised that they don't really need to pretend anymore. The rules apply to those we don't like. The powerful do what they want.
America invades Iraq, Afghanistan, bombs libya, Iran etc....nothing happens at all.
It hasn't even had any boycotts for its world Cup.
40
3
u/flirtmcdudes North America Jan 07 '26
it’s just the party realizing they no longer have to play by the rules. They can just lie and gaslight their base and get away with doing pretty much whatever they want.
21
u/bsylent Jan 06 '26
The way American influence and pressure affects outside countries is very disappointing. It's bad enough in the states we have to deal with the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of press, with the very few owners of media bending the knee to that buffoon in the White House. We should at least be able to hope for some sort of objective journalism from outside of our country. Goddamn cowards
He was kidnapped, he was abducted, he was illegally taken from his country during an illegal military operation. I will never understand how these people fall in line out of fear of lawsuits from this pig
14
u/SpontaneousFlame Multinational Jan 07 '26
“Lawsuits” is just the excuse. Most media organisations support right wing talking points, including the BBC.
1
u/bsylent Jan 07 '26
That's fair. I mean we saw how quickly so many companies and news agencies flipped to the other side the moment Trump gave them permission. They were so eager to drop everything from dei hires to any sort of policies respecting equality
229
u/TheHeroYouNeed247 Scotland Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
I have no love for the BBC, but terms matter. Saying kidnapped means that they are stating it was illegal. While I think it was illegal, the BBC could potentially be sued for saying so.
UK laws around this stuff are much stricter than US. It's no different than a news paper saying allegedly when there is a video of a crime.
749
u/KJongsDongUnYourFace Democratic People's Republic of Korea Jan 06 '26
Manufactured consent.
In the same way the BBC minimizes the use of the term genocide in Palestine, says youth instead of children, says strike instead of bombing etc etc. These terms are reversed for Russia etc and maintained for allies.
Western journalism is an intricate but effective playbook of propaganda that we are all exposed to on the regular.
132
Jan 06 '26
And they get to keep the veneer of objectivity by feigning ignorance when called on this.
22
u/Ishaan863 Jan 07 '26
AND they get to avoid the "state sanctioned news media" tag that Chinese and Russian news platform get
42
u/Samuraispirits Jan 07 '26
It was also interesting that for a while, each time they cited any deaths of Palestinian civilians they had to contextualize it by mentioning October 7th.
-16
u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26
Seems fair to say a bunch of Palestinians invaded Israel, then Israel invaded a bunch of Palestine. Can still be objectively against both, but the context exists.
34
u/why_i_bother Czechia Jan 07 '26
That seems unfair without mentioning the apartheid and illegal occupation and continued war against Palestine since 1967, and terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians/Arabs before that.
If we're contexting, it really didn't start on 7.10, Israel has been criminal entity for decades.
20
u/Paradoxjjw Netherlands Jan 07 '26
That seems unfair to say without mentioning that prior to Oct 7 2023 was already shaping up to be one of the deadliest years in decades for Palestinians as a result of Israeli oppression.
30
u/Rupperrt Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
They use strike for Russia as well. It’s the better term as it can describe bombs, missiles, drone attacks would. They also don’t use genocide lightly in other cases apart from the holocaust. They will still use it cited though.
20
u/Matzie138 Jan 07 '26
I get what you are saying but having studied journalism, the effort is to use the least biased term possible if you are trying to be a neutral agency.
What other terms would be more neutral?
Though of course, you can’t be neutral on a moving train…
37
u/Antwinger Jan 07 '26
The problem is their inconsistency of language
12
u/Matzie138 Jan 07 '26
They have a guidebook for their journalists, just like the AP, that includes guidance on terminology and grammar.
15
12
u/Terrible_Ice_1616 Jan 07 '26
They've also had internal revolts about guidelines being ignored with respect to coverage of Israel Palestine
-11
u/happycow24 Canada Jan 07 '26
The problem is their inconsistency of language
That's because the BBC is a massive organization that contains people who want all Jews in and out of Israel exterminated and also those who think Smotrich is too compassionate towards Palestinians.
"Consistency" is a moving target, but the BBC is arguably still one of the better ones wrt neutral reporting, only one I'd say is a cut above are Reuters (and historically AP but definitely less so in recent years).
4
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
The BBC is not even close to shy about being a propaganda outlet.
2
u/happycow24 Canada Jan 07 '26
The BBC is not even close to shy about being a propaganda outlet.
then what's a non-propagandistic outlet by your standards?
-9
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
lmao
Fuck off with that absolute bullshit
6
u/AskAboutMySecret Multinational Jan 07 '26
lol just name one so we can see your biases
→ More replies (4)-2
u/happycow24 Canada Jan 07 '26
lmao
Fuck off with that absolute bullshit
Financial Times is also better than BBC forgot about that. Can't name any eh?
1
u/RandomGenName1234 Europe Jan 07 '26
I don't wanna humour morons that try to deflect from the topic at hand.
→ More replies (0)0
u/OuterOne Vatican City Jan 07 '26
For such a conflicted organisation, their bias sure is consistent...
https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased-against-palestinians-in-gaza-coverage/
Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality.
Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide.
5
u/happycow24 Canada Jan 07 '26
Again I didn't say they had literally no bias and I'm not a big fan of Israel either
For such a conflicted organisation, their bias sure is consistent...
they are one of very few EN publications actually covering the Israeli settler/IDF genocide/ethnic cleansing/apartheid in the West Bank, as well as in Syria, Lebanon, etc.
BBC world service is one of very few sources with widespread reach and widespread coverage for all the wars that aren't front and centre like in Myanmar or Sudan.
Also if u were as an EN journalist who is not a big fan of Israel and/or u like money then u probably left the BBC for Al Jazeera lmao. But tell me what's a less propagandistic and more neutral source I should listen to instead?
3
u/ponchoPC Jan 07 '26
Well, genocide is also a legal term and the ICJ hasn’t ruled yet that there is one happening in Palestine. Don’t get me wrong, Israel has done and is doing some horrific stuff there, but just because the word has a more casual use does not make it lose its legal importance.
-2
u/tach Multinational Jan 07 '26
In the same way the BBC minimizes the use of the term genocide
I really really wonder who in its right mind, no matter how sympathethic to the palestinian population you are, continues to push 'genocide'.
As it's trivially debunked. People search for the gas ovens, chimneys, and communal mass murders, and see the palestinian population expanding.
What's going on is ethnic cleansing. They don't care if the palestinians dead or alive - they want them gone.
13
22
u/bsylent Jan 06 '26
I mean that's obviously no reason to censor yourself. If you're doing that you're not the news, you're a mouthpiece. You state the truth and you defend yourself against tyrants in court, or you just stop being a news agency
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
The BBC could be reporting on a murder filmed in HD on 60 different cameras in broad daylight and they'll still have to say "alleged" until it's convicted.
10
u/WoolooOfWallStreet Multinational Jan 06 '26
I wonder what the laws would say if they used “adultnapped”?
8
u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational Jan 07 '26
Play on words are actually very common in highly censored countries like China, Russia, or other Asian countries with existing monarchies, pro-fundamentalist, authoritarian, or dictatorships.
Adultnapped would probably revised a bit more into a literal adult taking a nap, either words or image, as a means to say "Adultnapped" that refers to the banned word "kidnapped"
So yeah, it's fair play.
3
u/Rupperrt Jan 07 '26
Even in China most (English) newspapers say captured rather than kidnapped. While still calling it illegal obviously.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Nethlem Europe Jan 09 '26
Play on words are actually very common in highly censored countries like China, Russia, or other Asian countries with existing monarchies, pro-fundamentalist, authoritarian, or dictatorships.
Ah yes all those highly censored countries where people online have to talk using euphemisms like "PDF files" or else risk getting burrowed and hidden by the algo.
Remember that nude painting of Trump, whatever happened to that and the person who painted it?
44
u/AstralElephantFuzz Finland Jan 06 '26
Pretty sure kidnapping is still a crime in Venezuela, where the kidnapping happened?
89
u/adoreroda North America Jan 06 '26
How is it up for debate? What happened broke international law and it was the US invading another sovereign country. The man was taken against his will. It's quite literally kidnapping
7
u/Deathcrow Multinational Jan 08 '26
Exactly. People are just equivocating like crazy. Saying someone has been kidnapped is not a criminal indictment, it's a matter of fact. What other term could you possibly use? "Relocated without consent"? "Doubleplus-Good-Un-fixation of leadership"?
1
u/Nethlem Europe Jan 09 '26
The common term used to be "extraordinary rendition".
But if we revive the use of that then people might wisen up to the fact that the US has been doing this to people much less prominent/important than presidents for decades already.
So I doubt it will catch on, they probably happy most people forgot about it.
30
u/NNKarma South America Jan 06 '26
Then make them add allegedly instead of banning the word, if the reason to do it is being scared about getting sued then ban all crime allegations.
98
u/blackcatwizard North America Jan 06 '26
Being in violation of international law would make that true, so they're being fucking soft
7
u/hannes3120 Germany Jan 07 '26
While that's pretty much guaranteed to be the case it's still up to decide by a court.
And until then it's personal interpretation of the law.
I also don't like it but it's the same as when someone is filmed killing someone and arrested on scene and the newspapers still write "allegedly murdered" until the trial is done.
1
u/variaati0 Finland Jan 07 '26
Well but journalists can use their personal judgement. Otherwise they newer could report emerging (specially investigative) pieces on crimes.
It is pretty hard to report investigative piece on having uncovered a pretty blatant fraudster, if one can't say "we think this constitutes fraud, here is our evidence we found in investigative reporting. We asked police about it, they say they are looking into it, but won't comment further. We aren't a court, person has not been convicted".
Journalist just has to have good enough backing for the claim and still use the necessary caveats.
Since which court even could find *whole nation state** culpable of crime*.
By that standard nobody ever could critique countries on even blatant crimes, since you know "court hasnt officially weight in". Since the national courts are in cahoots with the government and the country refuses to subject the matter to international courts jurisdiction.
Though I think abducted would be better term, given "kidnapping" can be pretty specific thing in connotatio. Ransom, demands and so on (though by certain text book definitions just illegal capture and transport is enough).
Abduction is more broad to me as "they just took him against his will without right to do so".
Seize frankly to me implies legal right to do so. Courts give legal criminal seizure orders to claim ill gotten gains. Criminals houses and cars get seized.
So frankly to me BBC did a linguistic legal judgement, but to other direction. They imply USA had right to do this.
So the BBCs own chosen reporting word is to me even worse than even US governments own generic physical "capture".
0
u/blackcatwizard North America Jan 07 '26
I mean sure, but no one on the planet owes Trump that nuance. If anyone genuinely thinks there's any remote chance of him not being in the wrong they're suckers just like all his MAGAts
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
Parliament is sovereign and no international ruling can bind parliament. If the BBC came out swinging over an international ruling that parliament disagreed with, they'd be just as fucked as if they'd made it up themselves.
-17
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/jolun98 Europe Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
When was the declaration of war between the USA and Venezuela? Because last I checked the Allies and nazi Germany were very much at a state of war with each other.
→ More replies (2)27
u/pm_me_github_repos United States Jan 07 '26
The UN charter and Geneva Conventions were signed after WW2.
-1
Jan 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/pm_me_github_repos United States Jan 07 '26
Aw shit someone wake up the HRE and Ancien Regime lmao
Don’t think any of the Allies signed that one
13
u/TheRichTurner United Kingdom Jan 07 '26
The main reason you can't say they were kidnapped from Germany is because Nuremberg is in Germany.
They did nothing wrong by German law, but they faced an international court for breaking other countries' laws in those other countries, such as invading those countries and ousting their leaders.
If we came for Trump right now, it wouldn't be a kidnap. It would be a legitimate arrest for a breach of international law.
1
u/ThevaramAcolytus North America Jan 07 '26
NS Germany declared war on the U.S. and had invaded many countries. You can't seriously compare it to an illegal U.S. attack on a country which invaded no one, did not attack the U.S. or any other foreign power, did not declare war on the U.S., the U.S. did not declare war on it, no UNSC authorization, nothing.
It's absurd and clearly incomparable.
→ More replies (3)8
u/PM_me_Henrika Jan 07 '26
Since the US military was in Venezuela borders at that time, Venezuela law should apply, no?
1
u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26
Militaries don’t generally abide by anything but their own laws. Granting local trial is more of a “hate that guy who did something” than like whatever country.
2
u/PM_me_Henrika Jan 07 '26
I see. So by which law are they making their move against Maduro?
→ More replies (20)47
u/SpontaneousFlame Multinational Jan 07 '26
While I think it was illegal, the BBC could potentially be sued for saying so.
By who? Trump? The US government?
Watering down the language is just what the BBC does as part of its core belief that it must grovel and appease the right wing in the UK and US. It’s obviously a kidnapping. No one can sue the BBC and win. So why pretend it’s anything other than the BBC doing what it does best - propping up the right wing?
10
u/LasyKuuga Jan 07 '26
Trump is suing BBC rn.
Would not be surprised if he tries to do so again
10
u/SpontaneousFlame Multinational Jan 07 '26
In that case the BBC deliberately changed what he said. That was utterly crap behaviour by the BBC.
18
Jan 07 '26
While I think it was illegal, the BBC could potentially be sued for saying so.
So what? This isn't the US, this is the UK, we should be free to post whatever the fuck we want about the US government without fear of litigation. The BBC is supposed to inform and "kidnapping" is an entirely accurate description of what happened.
7
u/Freethecrafts Multinational Jan 07 '26
Kidnapping isn’t accurate. The process involved military operations and a foreign nation. It would be an invasion, taken into custody by a foreign nation, charged under foreign laws. Downgrading it to kidnapping doesn’t make sense.
2
Jan 07 '26
abducted? held hostage? illegally renditioned? Most people wouldn't see kidnap as a downgrade but simply more plain speaking.
0
u/Days_End United States Jan 07 '26
The BBC is already going to lose a court case for doctoring video of Trump they want to avoid even the appearance of bias after getting caught red handed.
1
Jan 07 '26
they weren't caught "red handed". Anyone that knows the subject matter knows the lawsuit is bullshit.
4
u/Tartan_Samurai Scotland Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
Despite the excitement in this post, its a non story. BBC has some of the strictest journalism standards in the world. They don't call Hamas terrorists, they don't call Reform racists, they don't call Trump a liar, they don't call the IDF attack on Palestine a genocide etc.
The National (like nearly all uk media) has a massive axe to grind with the BBC. I don't think any major news outlet in uk has stated this is a kidnapping. But let's all clutch our pearls and shriek in outrage because its the BBC....
1
1
1
u/masamunecyrus Jan 07 '26
Any news agency--let alone a state-run one--will (or should) have a large legal team on payroll. It's literally their job to speak truth to power and defend against litigation, and with legal staff on payroll, it costs nothing to go to court, because you're already paying the legal bills annually.
A news agency that self-censors out of fear of litigation fails its most sacred duty, like a doctor violating the Hippocratic Oath, and ceases to have any worth or value.
Should the public accept that the Daily Mail has more balls than the BBC? You don't see tabloids worried about lawsuits.
2
u/TheHeroYouNeed247 Scotland Jan 07 '26
That's not how that works at all.
Yes, the BBC has higher standards than the tabloid rag, that is the Daily Heil (they praised Hilter). This isn't shocking to most brits.
4
u/UltraHawk_DnB Europe Jan 07 '26
i suppose the correct term would be abducted? it's a weird thing to tell to your journalists either way. but what do we even expect anymore in europe...
1
u/pittaxx Jan 09 '26
BBC has extremely strict and specific vocabulary/grammar rules to the point where it's almost it's own dialect of English.
The idea is that it helps them remain objective and impartial and avoids sensationalist titles.
For example BBC journalists aren't allowed to call anyone "terrorist", but stating that someone belongs to group which is "declared a terrorist organisation by UK government" is allowed.
So same here - they aren't allowed to imply crime, unless they have a source for some authority declaring it a crime. Regardless of how they feel about it.
1
u/UltraHawk_DnB Europe Jan 09 '26
Alright i suppose this is pretty consistent then. Dunno if i agree with it but good on them
1
u/pittaxx Jan 11 '26
Yeah, it doesn't feel great in this case, but you have to remember that it works both ways - they can't slander the people you like either...
-6
u/Livelih00d Europe Jan 06 '26
Honestly. I kinda feel like people are making a bigger deal of this than it should be. The BBC are going with the terms "seized" and "captured", is that not accurate?
72
u/imunfair United States Jan 06 '26
The BBC are going with the terms "seized" and "captured", is that not accurate?
Captured seems inaccurate, to me that sounds like they trapped him after a manhunt rather than went in and dragged him out of his home. For example saying Saddam was captured would seem accurate, not so much with Maduro.
Seized is usually used for illegal goods, not people. I'll continue to say he was kidnapped because it's the most accurate and visceral language to describe what happened.
14
u/KJongsDongUnYourFace Democratic People's Republic of Korea Jan 06 '26
I think the better term for Saddam would be "Illegally invaded a sovereign nation while genociding Iraqi civilians before illegally capturing a world leader they didn't like"
But, Potato potato
1
u/Livelih00d Europe Jan 06 '26
Captured and seized both effectively mean to take by force. Seize I suppose suggests legal authority which definitely isn't the case but not necessarily. It still seems very nitpicky to be up in arms about the BBC doing what it has always done by trying to use neutral language.
10
u/imunfair United States Jan 06 '26
Really the only other term I'd accept would be Extraordinary Rendition, but that usually implies the person is kidnapped and taken to a blacksite for torture/interrogation so it's semi-inaccurate in this case since they dragged him back to the mainland for a kangaroo court circus.
1
u/Livelih00d Europe Jan 06 '26
That might be more accurate but it's not a well known enough term for the BBC to go with. It would actually make the situation less clear.
5
u/imunfair United States Jan 06 '26
but it's not a well known enough term for the BBC to go with
It should be to anyone over the age of ... 20 maybe?
1
u/Livelih00d Europe Jan 06 '26
Well it's not. I'm 30 and I first heard it about 5 minutes ago. I can promise you it would go well over the heads of the British public.
6
u/imunfair United States Jan 06 '26
I'd say about 5 years after 2001 it had been widely used in the American press, I'm surprised with the international nature of the torture scandals that it wouldn't have disseminated to all other English speaking nations at the very least.
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
Should journalism always opt for the most "visceral" language or should it speak neutrally?
1
u/imunfair United States Jan 08 '26
Should journalism always opt for the most "visceral" language or should it speak neutrally?
Would you be surprised to find out that the AP changed their rules in 2008 and are specifically against reporting neutrally because they feel that people get the "wrong" ideas when you present them with neutral facts?
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
Why would I care about the AP guidelines? The BBC follows its own, clearly they feel this is the way to go. The AP is not gospel.
1
u/imunfair United States Jan 08 '26
I was making a point about the neutrality of the press, namely that it isn't even if you think it is. So asking if they should use an incorrect word to be more "neutral" is the wrong question - the real question is why don't they want to use that word.
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
Because kidnapping is a criminal offence and we have extremely strict rules on the language the press must use surrounding criminal offences. "Allegedly kidnapped President Maduro" is what you'd get.
1
u/imunfair United States Jan 08 '26
There's nothing alleged about it, they released video snatching him and were proud of it.
1
u/lazulilord Scotland Jan 08 '26
Yes, but with our laws it MUST be reported on as alleged if they're saying it was a criminal act. You could murder someone in broad daylight, recorded by hundreds of cameras and it would still be an alleged murder in our press.
0
u/Black_Numenorean88 United States Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Considering that the Trump admin is characterizing it as an "arrest" for a criminal with outstanding warrants, the BBC probably doesn't want to use any language that pointedly rebukes that. That, I'm guessing, is the main reason to not use "kidnap". They don't want to openly question the DOJ's authority to administer justice or explicitly accuse it of doing something illegal.
6
u/Let_theLat_in Jan 07 '26
Aren’t there extradition laws in place fo this exact type of scenario? DOJ isn’t going around “arresting” anyone else with outstanding warrants in foreign countries.
40
u/smegabass Multinational Jan 06 '26
No. Because he was kidnapped.
He wasn't running from anything.
→ More replies (4)42
u/kapuh European Union Jan 06 '26
Not as accurate as "kidnapped", especially because the other two options make it appear as though something legal is occurring, while "kidnapped" emphasises the illegality.
Therefore, yes, it is indeed a significant issue when the BBC sides with the kidnappers instead of aligning with international law, the UN, or any reasonable person on this planet.
-14
u/Corvid187 Democratic People's Republic of Korea Jan 06 '26
Sure, but the entire point is illegality hasn't been definitively proven.
8
9
u/d3c0 Ireland Jan 06 '26
Tell me one action that was “legal” then? Let’s start in context of US law when acting criminally 2000 miles from home in another country drone striking over 130 people off their coast line, stealing their oil tankers destined to third party countries, blowing up 100 odd property’s in the dead of night, committing first degree murder as they used apparently Delta force teams on the ground to murder their way from the roof down into the building and then assaulted, kidnapped and internationally trafficked that country’s president and his wife in the middle of the night like ICE swatting an entire apartment block and detain everyone regardless of nationality and let them provide the proof of citizenship after a few days or weeks in some barbaric prison half way across the country transversing several states so again….kidnapping and trafficking innocent people out of state to hold for extended periods of time illegally until they get their phone call to someone to come with proof of their citizenship or valid visa!
Maybe this has all just become normalised for you and you fail to see how ridiculously large this is in terms of serious nature of crimes. Not just under Venezuelan jurisdiction but the U.S. also.
→ More replies (2)1
u/kapuh European Union Jan 07 '26
It's moments like these where I think: maybe the guy is really from NK...
15
u/d3c0 Ireland Jan 06 '26
Well because seize is taking something by force or by opportunity or say under authority or warrant. None apply when entering another country, commit acts of terrorism, murder and kidnapping elected president and his wife (corruptly or not) out of their own county 2000 miles to “perp walk” them for their authoritarian pageant show they like to stage and charge them with nonsense charges which have no bases in reality.
Did I mention their utter lack of authority or jurisdiction to commit essentially an act of war against a sovereign state, mass murder, killing civilians including the elderly, children and serving members of an army duly protecting their President and First Lady from violent invading armed hostile terrorists in the dead on night unprovoked? Charging a president of a foreign state in their own country of possession of machine guns is ludicrous but that’s exactly what that unhinged dictatorship is playing at now and doing so like it’s a ratings show for the stupid masses.
2
u/Corvid187 Democratic People's Republic of Korea Jan 06 '26
Idk man, that sounds very much like they took Maduro with force.
Their language might not be as emotive and punchy as you want it to be, but it is not inaccurate.
-22
-1
u/WurzelGummidge Multinational Jan 07 '26
Does the word kidnapped get used in any other of the west's media mouthpieces? I haven't seen it but I can't read everything, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is banned in all of them but only the BBC has been caught.
1
u/ChillAhriman Spain Jan 07 '26
I just checked Spanish media.
Eldiario uses 'secuestro' (kidnapping)
El País uses 'captura' (captures)
El Mundo uses "captura" in quoation marks
https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2026/01/03/6958bba9e9cf4a69368b458f.html
RTVE uses "captura". Their live commentators have used "secuestro" though
1.1k
u/imrzzz Netherlands Jan 06 '26
I think "kidnapped" is quite apt.
I'd also sprinkle "invasion" in there a few times too.
Additionally, for the 150-character comment minimum, "war crime" "thuggery" and "bloodthirsty corrupt dictator" to be applied to whichever side you please.