...on a more serious note.
Mar. 22nd, 2004 12:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9The Globe & Mail website today features a story about the helicopter missile attack in the Gaza Strip outside a mosque yesterday, which killed the leader of Hamas, a fairly radical Palestinian group. Most agree that this will lead to violent retaliation by some.
The headline currrently running on the story? "Israel Assasinates Hamas Leader."
My question for today: is "assasinates" an inherently biased, and therefore judgemental, word? Should they have said "killed" ? Is the Globe putting editorial bias on their front page?
To me it feels like they are. But the more I think about it, the less I think it. It's a thing that makes me go hmmmm.
UPDATE: From CBC's article, which uses "kill":
...that sounds almost coldly clinical. 'They then shot the quadriplegic man four times. And jumped on the remains. For an hour.'
The headline currrently running on the story? "Israel Assasinates Hamas Leader."
My question for today: is "assasinates" an inherently biased, and therefore judgemental, word? Should they have said "killed" ? Is the Globe putting editorial bias on their front page?
To me it feels like they are. But the more I think about it, the less I think it. It's a thing that makes me go hmmmm.
UPDATE: From CBC's article, which uses "kill":
Israeli helicopters launched three rockets at the wheelchair-bound cleric and his bodyguards as they emerged from a mosque.
...that sounds almost coldly clinical. 'They then shot the quadriplegic man four times. And jumped on the remains. For an hour.'
