I’m a word person. I’m very, very, very verbal and I prefer to get my information through reading. Maybe that’s why I’m so sensitive to, and really obsess about, the nuances news coverage about events in the Middle East.
For example, there’s a BBC story boldly headlined “Palestinians killed in Gaza strip.” At this point, I have no idea whether they died by accident, were murdered at the hands of their fellow Palestinians, or died in combat with Israelis. The next paragraph, which is still bolded, although not in large font, answers the question, the Israelis killed them: “Three Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the Gaza Strip.” It’s only when I get to the third paragraph that I discover that the Israelis weren’t just firing for fun into Gaza. They were responding to provocation:
The shelling came in response to the launch of missiles across Gaza’s border, which hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon, injuring one person.
The Israeli army says it immediately identified the launch site and targeted the militants.
So, the news story does get to a point, which is that Israel used retaliatory fire aimed at armed combatants hiding amongst civilians only after Palestinians first successfully targeted Israeli civilians. This type of spin, which abandons chronological coherence in order to make a political point, is so annoying, especially since it manifestly shapes the moral equivalence that poisons that discourse.