I tend to run across a lot of news reportings on civilian deaths, and it is mostly about Israeli soldiers killing civilians. The headline will just usually read Israeli strike kills 10 civilians. Then you hear the reporter making the deaths the issue, and don't even give the details surrounding the deaths. Some times they give those details, but some times they don't.
I think it's a partisan move to report on things in that way. Perhaps in some cases, it's to just report on civilian deaths, but in other cases it can be to put Israel's military campaign in a bad light. When some people look at that reporting, they may say, well Israel is slaughtering people.
I think the best remedy to avoid those perceptions, whether deliberate or not, is to provide context behind the deaths. Don't just simply say that Israeli strike just killed 50 people, including women and children, but also state why. It would be important to know if the deaths were a matter of collateral damage vs. an unjustified killing.
I think it's a partisan move to report on things in that way. Perhaps in some cases, it's to just report on civilian deaths, but in other cases it can be to put Israel's military campaign in a bad light. When some people look at that reporting, they may say, well Israel is slaughtering people.
I think the best remedy to avoid those perceptions, whether deliberate or not, is to provide context behind the deaths. Don't just simply say that Israeli strike just killed 50 people, including women and children, but also state why. It would be important to know if the deaths were a matter of collateral damage vs. an unjustified killing.