Close
Log in
Please enter your login details

Skip to main content

feedback

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
  3. 3
  1. 04.06.14 by anaoumov

    Dear Editor,
    I am surprised I have to tell you such simple things, but Russia as a country did not participate in the WWII. It did not even exist back then. Country that effectively won the WWII was USSR. During the war, it was not Russian Army, but Soviet Army, which soldiers were from 100+ nationalities, including Russians. Calling Soviet Army “Russian” is annoying and disrespectful to all these nationalities.

    Is this so difficult to memorize in 60 years?
    BTW, I consider myself Russian.

    With regards,
    Anatoli

    06.06.14

    Dear Anatoli,
    You are quite correct, apologies for the inaccuracy. We will correct it, but you haven’t mentioned in which story it occurred and as you can imagine we have had extensive coverage of WWII events in recent days so it may take a little time to locate. Head of English Service

  2. 04.06.14 by mittsh

    Hello,

    You reported today about the historical D- day. The sound effects behind the interwievs of old veterans were very loud.
    They very often are! Please take into consideration that there are millions of wievers who cannot hear so well – or even have difficulties in hearing, for exempel tinnitus. Could you produce more news with clear speech without the SOUNDS or music? I understand very well English though I am a Finn, but I assume that many non-British wievers would appreciate MORE clear text.

    Best regards, Hannu Mitts

    06.06.14

    Dear Hannu,
    Useful feedback, thank you. We will look into it. Head of English Service

  3. 04.06.14 by vadimaliev

    NATO and the official Kiev believes that Russia is obliged to return the Crimea in Ukraine. And you ask residents of the Crimea. Want-whether they choose to return to Ukraine? About 90% of Crimean residents will vote to remain part of Russia. But if the US and Europe and Kyiv are not interested in the opinion of our respondents, it means that in these countries there is no democracy, but there is a totalitarian regime. Moreover, now this totalitarian regime in Europe and the United States resembles communism in the USSR. There is no freedom of speech. There is no objective news coverage. Who against the regime of these States they is the terrorists and separatists. Crimea is home to 80% of Russians. Historically, Crimea has always been considered Russian. But if Russia will try to give Crimea, people of Crimea will start a war as it is now in the South-East of Ukraine. When Russia annexed Crimea, she did it correctly on all legal norms. The fact that these norms are not recognized now by the European countries and the USA is stupid. The law on Russia’s side. And this is a fact! And the statements of Western and European politicians about this sound silly, too. And Russia will never give the Crimea to Ukraine. It is necessary to take for granted. And you have to be very reasonable politician to understand it and don’t start a new war. Hope you will post it my opinion on your website. (of course, if you are democratic media).

  4. 30.05.14 by vbal

    Dear euronews,
    I assumed your news channel as reliable and trustable origin of information but now I’m really disappointed by your position. From one point, you state your credo as (cite): “At euronews we believe in people’s intelligence and think that our duty is to give you the right amount of information so you can form your own opinion about the world. News is not a matter of having preconceptions. Our role is to broadcast reality and deliver reliable news, real news, pure news.”
    The same time, comparing the same article provided in different languages, I see a lot of differences not only in representation but even in information!!
    As example, let’s have a look at the same article “Ukrainian military helicopter shot down during fresh fighting near Slovyansk” in English, in Russian and in Ukranian. Russian version tell us about brave rebels, who successfully defend their homes and even shoot down helicopter, and about barbarous actions of Ukranian military forces, who use “Grad’ against civilians and forbid childs to be evacuated. English version is about four international observers from the OSCE who are captured by bad pro-Russian militiamen (and, by the way, helicopter was shoot down and citizens are fleeing away….)
    Ukranian version … well, it is stated that brave and victorious Ukranian militaries smash pro-Russian bandits, who traitorously attacked and hit Ukranian helicopter. Moreover, it is said that cruel terrorists shoot in civilians and do not allow them to leave Slovyansk, whilst Ukranian army opens corridors to get civilians away.

    Well, I don’t think I can trust you further if your position, like a weathercock, depends on the reader’s point.

    06.06.14

    Dear viewer, As a multilingual, multicultural news organisation our credibility lies in our neutrality to a much greater extent than it does with other international media and we take these issues very seriously. You should know that our stories are not a direct translation from an original text. They are written by journalists in their own idiom but to a very strict briefing and in accordance with clear editorial principles and objectives. Throughout the Ukraine crisis we have been particularly assiduous in applying these standards and with regard to that it would be very useful if you could provide us with information about the particular story to which you refer. Even in relation to the Slovyansk incident we have had a very large amount of stories and in order to follow up your comments it would be very useful to know when and in what context (web, TV, news, analysis etc) the story appeared. If you have this information please let us know. Head of English Service

  5. 25.05.14 by bartlomiejwrzesinski

    I would like to give you some feedback about the term you used in your articles.

    I would like to advise you against using the phrase “e/Eastern Europe”. It is an extremely loaded term, a shortcut for historical Eastern Bloc (if capitalised), and a geographical term (if non-capitalised), but both are confused.

    The first tirm has died out naturally after the Cold War, and the other describes countries east to Europe’s midpoint, which does not include Visegrád countries.

    Many people in Visegrád countries (also called Central Europe), including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia Poland, get extremely offended when called either.

    This is due to a myriad of reasons- (mostly: shared culture – notably architecture, customs, cuisine, Latin alphabet and Indo-European languages; identity; even religion: Western Christianity).

    Geographucally, however, the centre of gravity of the continent of Europe is either near Vilnius, Lithuania (according to the French National Geographic Institute) and the geographical midpoint is in Vitebsk, Belarus (according to an equivalent institute in Russia; not far away from the one near Vilnius). Many people tend to forget that European part of Russia is 40% of all European landmass.

    Visegrád nations are geographically in western Europe. Nevertheless, what we call Central European nations (Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks in particular, as well as Germans and Austrians) like the terms c/Central Europe for cultural (shared history over centuries) and geographic reasons (in the context of their identities and melting pot nature and shared elements of culture), taking advantage of the vagueness of the term.

    I recommend you a video on that matter in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/07/%E2%80%9Ceast%E2%80%9D-dead .

    Also, a Ted speech (starts at 0:40): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcTOSxcv2_o .

    I hope all of that helps to improve the quality of your articles.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3