Syria unrest: Air strike on bakery 'kills dozens'

Maybe just an unfortunately unintentional juxtaposition of bakery and dozens.

"Kills dozens" would be how they would report 90 deaths (or any number over 24 and below 100) anywhere, eg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20522872
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18758667
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20807736
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19776768
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20809898

etc. 'Dozens' is the normal word to use in British English for that kind of amount.

And that people use it all the time in entirely mundane contexts?

I've heard of groping for things to get offended at, but even taking into account other countries having different reporting styles your outrage here is pretty absurd.

They used the term the English-speaking world as a whole uses to refer to more than twenty-three and less than one hundred of something.

Get over it already.

Apparently, many women and children among the dead - who were all civilians.

And, yes, I use scare quotes because I think that there is little journalism here other than repeating claims by political groups.

The article says: "Dozens of people have been killed in a government air strike on a bakery in the central Syrian province of Hama, opposition activists say."

What I think it should say: "A Syrian opposition spokesperson claims that dozens of people at a bakery in the central Syrian province of Hama were killed in a government air strike."

Despite the BBC editor feeling compelled to reveal that BBC could not confirm the claim, it contradicts this by unconditionally stating that "(t)he incident took place in Halfaya, a town recently captured by rebels." What "incident?" The one that BBC states may or may not have occurred?

I'm on the opposite side of BBC regarding Syria, but I think more dispassionate objectivity is called for in reporting generally.

but have gone completely out the window in the course of this conflict. "Activists say...." is now the sole proof needed for the most unobjective statements unimaginable. It has been most unfortunate to witness this even in outlets that seemingly had some respectability, or at least a sense of standards and protocol left, but indeed few remain. That has wide implications for the future far beyond this one particular situation.

into the country, it is indeed difficult to independently verify events. For the most part journalists have to report what "government spokesman" or "activists" say about events or they would just have to ignore events in Syria altogether.

Most of us put more credence in "reports" from one side or the other and discount "reports" from the other as "propaganda".

The 'last updated' time is 2200 (GMT), which was before you posted:



The inhabitants would, of course, be best placed to say whether there were airplanes around. The "it was a false flag operation" excuse usually sounds tired, though; I think the BBC is more saying that the number of dead cannot be confirmed, rather than given credence to the "nothing to do with us" government claim.

They do claim that the videos are not showing the aftermath of such a thing, however.

SANA states:

Terrorists Attack Hilfaya in Hama Countryside, Commit Murders Against Citizens

An armed terrorist groups attacked Hilfaya town in Hama countryside and committed crimes against its people, resulted in the martyrdom of several persons including children and women, before making footages accusing the Syrian army of the crimes.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that residents from Hilfaya said that the terrorist group committed crimes and attacked public institutions, including the town's dispensary and municipality.

Hilfaya people said that they called upon the Syrian army to intervene, adding that the army engaged with the terrorists and eliminated large numbers of them.

http://www.sana-syria.com/eng/337/2012/12/23/458673.htm
.....

I'm wary of both renditions. It wouldn't be surprising if the government forces launched an airstrike on what they thought were insurgent positions, regardless of the chances of what some militaries refer to as "collateral damage."