Martek: (As far as Google Translate - that source kept refreshing every few seconds and in the process, throwing away the translation. I'd re-translate, and maybe get 5-seconds to re-find my spot and continue reading. I finally just gave up.)
Where trying to translate the whole page? You might have better results if you go [url=http://translate.google.com/ ]here [/url] and just paste the text in. Language detection is automatic and English-Italian translation is surprisingly decent most of the time.
I also found
this other site to be very useful for translating specific words, slang terms, and short sentences google translate has trouble with.
Martek: So just as a suggestion, next time you call BS on one of these reports, at least give us some additional context other than "they're
completely talking out their ass" - so that we know what you are referring too. :)
Yes, you've got a point here. I actually expected that anyone running the text through google translate would be able to spot the differences, but it looks like I was wrong. That, and the fact that people in internet forums usually don't like to read walls of text, so I didn't bother making a detailed explanation.
Martek: That what it boils down to on this one - they embellished. And, worse, from what you are saying - they maybe jumped on the story too early. (Similarly, here in the USA - there's tons of "fake hate" - so much so that I don't even believe these cases anymore until proven as fact. [the boy cries wolf way too often]) .
I can't really agree with this. I'm one of those guys who still think that the job of a journalist should be to find and report facts as objectively as possible (yes, I know, wishful thinking). Had they just reposted the case exactly as they found it, I wouldn't have had any problem with it.
But they didn't. They twisted all the main points, and then some. They changed the activists' version AND the woman's version. They forgot to mention that the police has reportedly been very cautious (if not skeptical) about the case. The woman's full statement was included in one of their sources, but they omitted that too. They also somehow managed to change a few small details here and there, such as the man's nationality from
Senegal, which is in west Africa, to
Sudan, which is close to Arabia (a mistake? or maybe because later in their article they mentioned an UK Sudanese asylum seeker was facing trial for rape at the time?).
YMMV, but I think they went a bit overboard with the embellishment here. And it pisses me off, because if the source articles were in English they wouldn't have dared to twist them so much. It pisses me off because it's fake. It pisses me off because there are actually people who believe this stuff, and keep parroting them.
The rape might as well be happened in the end - I don't know, I wasn't there - but this article would still remain horse fecal matter. It's a prime example of what should
never happen in journalism, and they deserve zero respect for it.