MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 19th 2017 - 18:41 UTC

UK Ambassador Kent interview in La Nacion is not accurate

Friday, February 17th 2017 - 11:36 UTC
Full article 28 comments
Ambassador Kent’s actual words were: “We can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side.” Ambassador Kent’s actual words were: “We can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side.”
The Ambassador’s words were: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognize the Islanders, recognize their rights, their hopes, their fears.” The Ambassador’s words were: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognize the Islanders, recognize their rights, their hopes, their fears.”

Political and diplomatic analyst from Argentine newspaper La Nacion has altered an online version of an interview due to his inaccurate reporting of an interview with the British Ambassador in Argentina.

 The interview given by Ambassador Mark Kent to Martin Dinatale, “intimated that after Britain and Argentina work through various items they might well talk about sovereignty,” explained MLA Gavin Short on a social network site.

He added: “There was also mention of our ‘interests’ and not wishes. These interviews are recorded and the recordings clearly show that the Ambassador did NOT use those words.”

He drew attention to an Embassy circular as follows:

The interview published by La Nacion on Sunday contained some quotes attributed to the Ambassador that were not accurate, including the one used as a title.

The title read: “We can work on a lot of bilateral issues before we speak of the islands’ sovereignty.”

The Ambassador’s actual words were: “We can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side.”

The other phrase was: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognize the islanders, their interests, and their life.”

The Ambassador’s words were: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognise the Islanders, recognize their rights, their hopes, their fears.”

The Embassy sent the correct quotes to Mr Dinatale taken from their own recording of the interview, and asked him to amend - at least - the online version of the interview,
which he has done.

The Embassy said Mr Dinatale expressed his apologies and said it was what he had heard on his own recording, and it had not been done deliberately or in bad faith.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • James Marshall

    Of course he won't , there is one thing Think, Voice and Mr Kohen have in common, they are all hit and run merchants....

    Posted 2 days ago +8
  • James Marshall

    Ah Mr Think, I think you tried that bull on another thread, here is my response to that very same post.....

    Let us just put 'Aside' or 'to one side' what your learned and esteemed compatriot Mr. Marcelo Kohen has said in order to clarify your statements....

    1) Notice the use of those two phrases/words 'aside' and 'to one side', they have the same meaning do they not?

    2) Thank you for providing 'some' of the translations for the phrase in question, it provides us with clear evidence that there are many ways to translate a phrase in certain instances without having to use a different word/words.

    3) Just to clarify, the British Embassy provided the actual wording of the original interview in Spanish, it was not revised. A revision would suggest that it was changed by the British Embassy and as we all agree it was changed by the Argentine reporter transcribing Spanish to Spanish.

    4) The fact that the British Embassy used the phrase 'to one side' in their translation as opposed to what you would deem an acceptable translation of 'Aside' is pedantic, puerile and frankly just clutching at straws. It is clearly an attempt to divert from the fact that a far greater and deliberate mistake had been made in changing the original Spanish to Spanish version.

    You pick up on the smallest of details in a translation, while ignoring the far greater inaccuracy that was a calculated, deliberate and underhand misrepresentation of the original Spanish version by your fellow ‘Malvanistic’ country man, yet we are the “Brainwashed”.

    Posted 1 day ago +6
  • James Marshall

    Sorry Think your version 'C', in the context of what Mr Kent said is incorrect as it means something entirely different to what was inferred. So that just blows your whole argument out the water, showing clearly that a translation can be interpreted in a variety of ways in the other language and mean something entirely different .

    One translation you missed, was to translate 'aparte del' as 'apart from', which would in this context and version, be the most accurate.

    'Apart from', 'Aside', 'To one side' and 'other than' all have the same meaning. 'As well as considering' is a completely different meaning and as an English translation would be wrong in this context. 'Apart from considering' would be correct, but that would use a different spanish phrase would it not?

    Mr Kents office revised the incorrect version published in La Nacion to reflect the truth, in the same way the interviewer revised the correct version to produce his fantasy work. Not to difficult to understand Mr Think, even for you.

    Now tell us all why you think the reporter had to change the text, for what purpose. Surely that transgression is of far more importance, no?

    Posted 1 day ago +6
Read all comments

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.