On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting point of debate. > This logic says that it is possible only to have an opinion if you speak the > language of the country that you have a though about. > This is just silly, I can like a part of Wales without speaking Welsh!
The logic is more like "the English speaking world has a different opinion than the Spanish speaking world." This is frequently true, since you can hear more comments, first hands accounts and more diverse opinions in a given sphere of language. In the US, electoral candidates often run different messages in English and Spanish, sometimes hoping one isn't listening to the others. If I spoke only English, I would have to rely on selected Spanish translations and individual excerpts from the Anglosphere - not the much fuller coverage and mass bulk of first hand material in the original language. In the US, I often muse how American English news will cover hurricanes like, "A hurricane is nearing Haiti.... Dominican Republic.... Cuba" Ignoring the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico. I always go to Spanish speaking Puerto Rican source for accurate or *any* information Ethnic media has always been important for this very reason. Often minority group issues only get coverage if it impacts the majority or in power group. Which means, the news is often slanted towards conflict. One excellent example of this slant was the coverage of the March 11 attacks in Spain. The US was blaming certain groups and talking about how the citizens were fearful of Al Qaeda to switch parties, meanwhile, the front page of elpais.es online had the letter claiming responsibility and a host of other information showing the citizenry was more upset that the government seemed to actively lie about the source of the attacks. Two entirely different stories. My guess is the majority of Americans still believe Spain buckleld under a bombing as opposed to reacting to the specific actions of their government like they reported. I think the Ambassador has a strong point. The first thing is - BBC has the capacity to get more direct spanish speaking sources. A smaller source might not. But any reporter worth their salt knows the conflict in Venezuela is largely between the minority wealthy and the majority poor, which translates often into bilingual English speaking and Spanish or indigenous speaking people. English speakers are more likely to be inculturated by English speaking media or already "on that side." I don't think it's a realistic argument for anyone to suggest the best way for asking a Spanish speaking population their experience is to do it in English or even in their English outlets. It would be much more effective and accurate to reach out to people in the outlets produced in their native language. If we were to ask Iraqis their experience since Saddam Hussein's fall, would it be best to do ask in English, Spanish or Arabic? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
