Log in
Please enter your login details

Skip to main content


Welcome to Feedback. This is the place where you set the agenda. We want to hear about the issues and stories which have upset, entertained, provoked or intrigued you. Whatever you want to make a point about, this is the message forum for you.

This is a public message board provided by euronews. Material included on these message boards has been posted by users of the euronews website. The views expressed do not represent those of euronews and should not be relied upon as such. Users should not post any material which is illegal, in breach of copyright, defamatory or otherwise unlawful.

Feedback form

Thank you for your feedback. Please subscribe in order to post your comment or question

Join us or Log in

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. 18.02.15 by k

    European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court but a court of the Council of Europe.

  2. 09.01.15 by eelmaa.erik

    It is really inappropriate to compare the recent terrorist acts in Paris to the bombing of Guernica by the quote “Germany” unquote, as it did the english speaking commentator today during the hostage crisis in Paris live coverage today. First of all it was Spanish government who authorised the bombing, second the alternative to not react was communist dictatorship similar to the Stalin’s dictatorship in Spain. So in fact there was a clash between two radical dictatures, not between the democracy and the islamic fundamentalism.
    It is really appalling how english speaking media still trying to discredit the German democratic achievements everywhere possible, even in the science channels like Discovery. Shame on them!
    I think all this hostility towards the Germany is fueled by economical competition between US and UK on the one side and the Germany on the other side. And that is why it is especially disgusting!


    Dear viewer The idea behind the remark about Guernica, which came as part of unscripted live commentary on the dramatic event as it unfolded, was that the attacks in Paris were an attempt to destroy ideals and culture and break the spirit of a people, in a similar vein to the levelling of Guernica. No comparison was made between the perpetrators. It was the intention behind the attacks that was being compared. Head of English Service

  3. 30.12.14 by j.wasyluk

    In your latest report on Petro Poroshenko you translate his word ‘nadumanyi” (надуманий) – as “it will be only in our imagination”. I watched Poroshenko’s press conference yesterday and read Ukrainian reports as well as consulted my dictionary. I am sure he meant that the war in eastern Ukraine was “artificially contrived”. Please correct.

  4. 16.12.14 by obkarakaya

    That is right that freedom of expression and freedom of press are nothing new in Turkey. But this has been same in EU countries. Of course it was different . For for instance you were more free to ciritise government than Turkey. But when the subject was Israel you would be in severe problems. So there has been always restrictions for express your thoughts in everywhere. Moreover EU countries ignored some raids to human rights and kept their eyes off. They reacted politically and choosen problems to deal with…

  5. 14.12.14 by malfred

    I noticed in a broadcast today on MHz worldview that the reporter referred to Nelson Mandela as South Africa’s “first African president”, which is, of course, inaccurate. He was the first black president, but many of his predecessors were native South Africans.

  6. 12.12.14 by shojaei.hamid

    Hello. I am from Iran.Thanks for your impartial news report.

  7. 03.12.14 by franfras

    Yesterday, I was watching a euronews bulletin on television and was taken aback, disturbed even, by an item concerning the 30th anniversary of the Bhopal gas disaster.

    The report lasted a couple of minutes, detailing the shocking effects and aftermath of the mass poisoning of the surrounding population. Notably absent, however, was any mention of the bringing to justice of those responsible (or rather, the fact that no-one has been!).

    But especially, I found it terribly incongruous that at no point did the reporter mention the name of the American corporation who were majority owners of the chemical plant at the time: UNION CARBIDE.

    I find it hard to believe that was simply an omission on the reporter’s part. Indeed, if that were the case they would certainly be guilty of amazingly bad reporting.

    This leads me to deduce that the name of the corporation responsible was deliberately suppressed. Which, naturally, left the report completely without substance.

    Do the corporations already have such a heavy hand in the editorial line of euronews?

    Is this the shape of things to come?

    And, most of all, how much worse will this become when the peoples of Europe are delivered, bound hands and feet, to the tender mercies of the corporate lawyers, once we have been sold down the river by our politicians with the signing of the TTIP treaty?


    Dear viewer,
    We covered this event extensively over the period of the 30th anniversary and had several stories on air and online. I’m not sure which particular report you are referring to but we certainly did mention Union Carbide and all pertinent fact relating to the tragedy and the victims’ subsequent fight for justice. Here is a line from one story aired on 02/12:
    “Union Carbide paid out $470 ml in 1989, but activists claim that 90 percent of victims received just $500”
    In another story on 03/12 we reported: “For the populace suffering is a fact of life and fight for justice and compensation continues.” Our coverage was fair, balanced and thorough, reflecting the facts of the disaster as it unfolded and the situation of the victims today.

  8. 02.12.14 by vova-mak

    Misrepresentation of facts in

    Thirty years on, the Union Carbide gas leak continues to poison lives in Bhopal

    The video says 1989, but the text says 1984. What information should I trust?

    Very sad that gaps like this happen at your source… could do better.

  1. 1
  2. 2