comparison: after, with

Question

1. A second American journalist appears to have been executed by Islamic State militants after another chilling video emerged online overnight. (Aussie ABC’s transcript; part of the audio; original
   
2. A second American journalist appears to have been executed by Islamic State militants with another chilling video emerging online overnight. (my transcript)

The audio is not matched with 1 - English sounds being way different from my own, there could be errors. It needs to be corrected with, whose semantic meaning is OLAD #11. But can ‘after’ be used in the same context? Can 'after' be used to denote a cause for something? If yes, is whose meaning OLAD #6 - as a result of or because of something that has happened?

Answer 1

A journalist appears to have been executed after another video emerged overnight.
A journalist appears to have been executed with another video emerging overnight.

I believe the definitions you chose for with and after are correct in this context. I would prefer the first sentence because of the simple past tense, which I believe is easier to understand.

The newscasters speak in a way that is meant for television. Instead of saying:

A video emerged overnight that appears to be the execution of a second American journalist by Islamic State militants.

the newscaster begins the sentence with the most attention getting part—"A second American journalist executed...". This, combined with the desire to speak very concisely to report the most news in the shortest amount of time, causes some very strange sentence structures.