BBC website published this article today. At first, it struck me that with the events in Iran, there are also other bad [ok, I censored myself - a different word was here before] things going on around the world.
But then I read the article and to me it looks like an onion-style joke. I know that serious news outlets have strict rules when it comes to language, neutrality etc. But at some point it crosses the fine line between neutral, detailed reporting and bad craziness. Tarantino, anyone?
"The al-Shabab group has carried out amputations, floggings and an execution in the port of Kismayo but such punishments are rare in the capital."
'Oh, really? That's interesting. Let's think about it over a cup of tea.'
'Yes, obviously it'd be much different to have your hand cut off in Mogadishu and not in Kismayo.'
"It is not clear where the leg will be cut."
Ok. I know. I too think it does make a difference. But when you put it like that, with this balanced neutral tone, it sounds like poor comedy!!! They're gonna cut their legs off!!
"No date was set for the punishment, which will be carried out after the health of the accused is assessed."
Because it's perfectly normal to check if people are healthy enough to have their limbs amputated. (I know it is! but it shouldn't be! and it shouldn't be written about in a manner that makes it seem normal!)
"Furthermore, Monday was very hot and the court decided that carrying out an amputation in such conditions could lead the accused to bleed to death."
that was under the cute mid-title: 'Too hot to amputate'
"Amnesty International said the four men had not been given a fair trial."
Because if they had a free trial, well, then it's ok?
(The AI actually protested the whole idea of 'these cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments' - as also reported in the article; but somehow the BBC decided the fair trial is more important here.)
