They are reporting on what he told them. Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
The title and article both make it clear that they are reporting his story.
Additionally, the rest of the article - including the ones before and after your quote - discusses numerous cases of other similar scenarios.
Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
“If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?” is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn’t a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it’s not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it’s been reported by the BBC it’s prima facie undeniably true.
They are reporting on what he told them. Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
The title and article both make it clear that they are reporting his story.
Additionally, the rest of the article - including the ones before and after your quote - discusses numerous cases of other similar scenarios.
“If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?” is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn’t a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it’s not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it’s been reported by the BBC it’s prima facie undeniably true.