I blame the criminal gang that took their money, provided the boat and sent them all out there. Odd the news never mentions that end of the boats journey. I guess that would require some journalism though instead of the “This person said this. That person said that” lazy copy that is standard nowadays
I’m terrible at headlines, but honest journalism would have a title sort of like: “Criminal Human Traffickers Overload Boat Full of Immigrants, Causing Rescue Attempt to Fatally capsize boat”
The German non-governmental organisation Sea-Watch charters boats to rescue migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean. It said it does not have enough information yet to assess exactly what happened but its head of operations told us: "Towing an old vessel with hundreds of people on board in heavy seas is sure to fail and be a disaster.
“According to what we know from the pictures and the testimonies, it’s not a safe way to rescue the people on the boat in distress.”
Your headline puts all blame on the human traffickers and absolves the coast guard, but if the coast guard that is meant to rescue people instead caused, or even partially caused, their mass death, even if through incompetence, that is news. This was hundreds of people that died.
I haven’t heard a single person defend the traffickers’ actions, but it’s much harder to fix that side of the problem than it is to determine how one’s own nation responds. It’s worthwhile to see news about things you can actually have a chance of doing something about.
Letting people die, allowing the coast guard to commit mass negligent homicide (or whatever it ends up called) without consequence or any attempt at reforming it, and denying all responsibility because someone else screwed the refugees over first would be absurd and morally bankrupt.
It’d be like finding someone bleeding out in an alley, and instead of calling an ambulance you stab them or punch them a couple times. That’s still criminal as all hell, even if the person might have died anyway before you showed up.
I imagine a lot of that is due to issues with liability. If a journalist says “X did Y”, that opens them up to lawsuits. If they say “A alleges that X did Y”, then that allows them to report without fear of a lawsuit.
The end of the article did talk about who may have sent them out there.
Two of the survivors said Greek authorities had asked them, through interpreters and lawyers, to give evidence against the nine Egyptians who have been accused of people trafficking.
But all four survivors said the nine Egyptians were passengers, seated among them on the journey. They say the ship’s crew were masked and spent most of their time in the cabin.
“The crew jumped in the water when the coastguard approached and some of these nine Egyptians tried to sail the boat,” one of them told us. “It seems to me they are not the ones involved in people smuggling,” he added.
Relatives of Egyptians who fear their loved ones were on board have told the BBC that they paid $4,500 (£3,500) each for the journey.
I blame the criminal gang that took their money, provided the boat and sent them all out there. Odd the news never mentions that end of the boats journey. I guess that would require some journalism though instead of the “This person said this. That person said that” lazy copy that is standard nowadays
Thats not news though its a well known fact that gets reported on plenty.
However, do you want to have headlines like “this issue is still the same, nothing changed, there are no news”?
I’m terrible at headlines, but honest journalism would have a title sort of like: “Criminal Human Traffickers Overload Boat Full of Immigrants, Causing Rescue Attempt to Fatally capsize boat”
From the article:
Your headline puts all blame on the human traffickers and absolves the coast guard, but if the coast guard that is meant to rescue people instead caused, or even partially caused, their mass death, even if through incompetence, that is news. This was hundreds of people that died.
I haven’t heard a single person defend the traffickers’ actions, but it’s much harder to fix that side of the problem than it is to determine how one’s own nation responds. It’s worthwhile to see news about things you can actually have a chance of doing something about.
Letting people die, allowing the coast guard to commit mass negligent homicide (or whatever it ends up called) without consequence or any attempt at reforming it, and denying all responsibility because someone else screwed the refugees over first would be absurd and morally bankrupt.
It’d be like finding someone bleeding out in an alley, and instead of calling an ambulance you stab them or punch them a couple times. That’s still criminal as all hell, even if the person might have died anyway before you showed up.
I imagine a lot of that is due to issues with liability. If a journalist says “X did Y”, that opens them up to lawsuits. If they say “A alleges that X did Y”, then that allows them to report without fear of a lawsuit.
The end of the article did talk about who may have sent them out there.