But usually the fact the event happened is never in debate: its impact on victims and culprit, and the need for readers to cool down or be offended, is often gu

But usually the fact the event happened is never in debate: its impact on victims and culprit, and the need for readers to cool down or be offended, is often guiding editorial decision. For example, Im French and live in China. I read of Nankin in French very neutrally with a small pro chinese bias: it happened "far away" from my original culture, I know it s used a lot in China to remind people of Japan's dark side, Im usually interested in the number of death, disciplinary problems in the japanese army, weakness of the chinese defense system, I feel dejected by the girl hunting and expect Japan to face it upfront. But I m sure a Japanese has a very different perspective: why did they go to war in the first place, how did it serve as an escape mechanism from the blocus, how today's communist propaganda needs to increase the horror factor, how the former soldiers never speak of it. A Chinese wouldnt even comprehend the existence of such aspects unless very tuned to the Japanese perspective (like how french education now tries to give a german perspective to wwii) There is a single reality, but truth is the conversion of reality into speech. It s always going to be tainted unless you spend weeks explaining all variations in all parties. Just choosing adjectives in a limited article is going to not represent reality perfectly.