Low-level hostilities continued over the weekend. A Palestinian man was killed early Sunday by Israeli fire in southern Gaza, Palestinian medical officials said. They identified the man as a 40-year-old civilian.
The military said it had carried out an airstrike against a gunman who was seen approaching ground troops in the area. Later in the day, at least three Qassam rockets fired by militants from Gaza landed in the Israeli border town of Sderot, causing damage but no serious injury. One landed on the roof of a supermarket, and another in the town’s cemetery.
and said to myself, well, in the first paragraph Israel claims he was a gunman but the Pals. say he was a civilian. In the second paragraph, the Pals. claim nothing and the paper doesn't say "civilian targets" even though they are identified as a supermarket and the cemetery.
Shouldn't the Times have used the adjective "civilian"?
Not using it, in this circumstance, is biased, no?
Posts
1 comment:
Oh, c’mon, this borders on the ridiculous! In the first case the identification is warranted since the guy could be a militant, as Israel claimed. The paper is evenhanded by mentioning both versions of the story. In the second case the “civilian” label is totally superfluous, unless you are in favor of such erudite constructions as “soapy soap”. Ever heard of “civilian supermarkets” or, maybe, “militant cemeteries”?
If NYT were unbiased it would have printed much more articles detailing what happens in the territories, for example, than it does. But then, of course, it would raise the ire of ADL, Alan Dekshkowitz and other such vigilante who would have found millions of excuses and reasons to show why these articles are anti-Semitic and other such stupid nonsense without ever dealing with concrete examples of wrongdoing.
Post a Comment