EXCLUSIVE: Peacekeeping is a Putin trap, Kallas warns
-
Did you read the interview? It is like half of the questions she avoids answering.
-
Yes, I did read the interview. This is why I am wondering about your comment.
-
Hmm
Looking at the interview again now, they seem to have further edited and shortend it making it less obvious how much question dodging she seems to have done.There is still no real substance in it, but at least it reads less painful than the version from yesterday.
-
The posted version was published yesterday, 18 Feb at 17:08, and there is no edited version now as I write this comment. It's the same version.
-
The Internet archive seems to have not captured the old version either, but I am not making it up, and the article does say the the interview was edited for "clarity".
-
Remarks like the one on the site like "What follows is an edited transcript" are done by journalists to signal that the interviewee hasn't said so literally, because the spoken word is different from the written one. They edit minor things from the transcript. That doesn't mean that the article has been edited.
And as we can see from the data on the original site, the article has indeed been not edited.
-
We had meetings with a lot of Americans, and, in general, we got different messages, even from the same people, in different meetings. How to understand it all is, of course, a question. What they are saying to us in the meetings is that they will not agree on anything like this.
As there are many interlocutors on the American side, we need to accommodate ourselves to the new ways of working with the new administration to understand all the messages. The Americans assured us in every meeting that they were committed to Europe and working together. They're committed to NATO and understand the security concerns of Europe.
Translated from diplo speech: The Americans have no idea what they're doing or what they want and bailed out of anything concrete by telling us that sure, they'd like to have dinner sometime.
-
Yes I am aware of that of course, but I find it very insulting that you accuse me of lying about this. Why would I even do that?
-
I don't accuse you -nor anyone else- of nothing. I am just stating the facts.
-
A website can of course change its content any time without stating so. There are no facts to be had here other that I acknoledge that the current version reads different from my memory of the version I read yesterday. I have no reason to lie about that and am also confused why they would change the interview that much without clearly marking it. You can of course chose to believe that I am lying, but that is quite rude.
-
This is the same weird pattern of conversation we and a couple of others have had in this community in another thread. I am sorry, but your behaviour is again very weird, and it seems even more so as it comes from a moderator. I don't understand why you are getting offensive if someone else has a different opinion or corrects you of a simple mistake everyone of us happens to make once in a while.
I have just said what the facts are as it's clearly visible on the site. That's not rude, and I have not 'chosen to believe' something. I have nothing more to add here.
-
Ok this is starting to get bad faith. I went back on my original statement after checking the website again and realizing it was altered from what I remembered, and even tried to find proof for that in the internet achive (which sadly doesn't seem to exist). And you double down in accusing me of lying about my own memory? Like are you even aware of what you are writing? How can I make a "mistake" about my own memory? Can I prove that that the website was altered? No. But insisting that I am lying about my own memory is really bad faith arguing.
-
The Internet archive seems to have not captured the old version either, but I am not making it up, and the article does say the the interview was edited for “clarity”.
I don't say you make something up, but they don't say to have edited for "clarity," I can't see this at least (just correct me if I am wrong). They are really referring to the transcript as already said.
-
Fine, it doesn't use the word "clarity" here:
What follows is an edited transcript.
-
Clarity was your word. And the transcript is always edited as someone already explained. But the article doesn't appear to have been edited indeed. It's the original version.
-
You have as little proof of that as I do. And later editing of articles and headlines without any note of that is sadly extremely common with online media especially when is comes to breaking news where the outlets complete with each other to have exclusive scopes on their website faster than others.
-
You have as little proof of that as I do. And later editing of articles and headlines without any note of that is sadly extremely common with online media especially when is comes to breaking news where the outlets complete with each other to have exclusive scopes on their website faster than others.
Euractiv (as many others) does that frequently, and any edit is "time-stamped" automatically as soon as the editor edits. This is the original version.
(And this competition for scoops is primarily on the agency level, not here with Euractiv which aims at the public audience. I used to work for agencies and know that first-hand, but also agencies clearly mark any edits with time and date, that I can tell you for sure.)
