Sometimes there’s room for doubt about what a video shows, because it’s unclear. Sometimes there’s ambiguity because context is relevant and not present in the video. But this video is clear and no context could possibly redeem what we see. This is a gang of terrorist thugs once again murdering an innocent and peaceful person in broad daylight, as part of the Nazi regimes goal of crushing the American people into submission through terror.
Sometimes there’s room for doubt about what a video shows, because it’s unclear. Sometimes there’s ambiguity because context is relevant and not present in the video. But this video is clear and no context could possibly redeem what we see. This is a gang of terrorist thugs once again murdering an innocent and peaceful person in broad daylight, as part of the Nazi regimes goal of crushing the American people into submission through terror.
Yes… There’s reason for this language… “appears to,” “alleged criminal,” etc.
…but as you say, there’s no need for that language here. There is no ambiguity.
Good journalists cross-check more than one source before concluding anything. Have they spoken to any witnesses? Is the video fake?
I think it’s a good thing that the languagr is weak because there aren’t any more evidence (yet).
multiple videos and multiple eye witness accounts corroborate the events
There are quite a few videos from different perspectives of the same incident. I do not think that weak language is warranted.
Perhaps it was at the time of posting, but it’s clear in the video that at least one of Ice clearly fucked up.
That’s my point. Unless they want to change the title, they have to use weak language if they want to post an article before more evidence shows up.
They could change it now but they will probably just write a more thorough story to feed the algorithm again.