I'd assume so as well. My point is that such distinctions often do not survive translation. See that every day...
>> I’d assume so as well. My point is that such distinctions often do not survive translation. See that every day... <<
Fair enough. But what basis is there for presuming that a faulty translation covered up a terrible statement? Which is more likely: that a headline writer added sensationalism to a story; or that a journalist used a bad translation that washed away the entire import of his story, that his editor also missed, but the headline writer noticed and played up but failed to correct? As bad as I believe many journalists and translators do their jobs, I can hardly imagine that the shocking nature of a headline comes from a headline writer being MORE accurate, rather than a headline writer injecting unfair sensationalism.