The article begins: "Mohammed Abu Al-Qumsan had just picked up birth certificates for his newly-born twins when he found out they had been killed, along with his wife and her mother, by an Israeli strike on the Gaza apartment where they were sheltering."

There's more detail about the attack (tank shell) and a photo of the grieving man.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

It’s important enough to have in the first paragraph of the article. Why not have it in the headline? The reality is that many people do not even read the article. The headline not only has a role in capturing the attention of readers but is often the extent of information people receive? Saying ‘Israeli strike’ is only two more words. Why did reuters not include it. It’s naive to think there isn’t a propaganda spin to not mentioning it in the headline.

[–] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 months ago

The article begins with the headline, which is all most people read. The point here is that it omits the perpetrator. If it was Russia it would be front and centre stated. This lying by omission has become a standard trope for western legacy media.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sure. But normally a headline tells you who did what. That's the point of a headline.

Active sentence construction is one of the first skills they teach in journalism.

"Carcinogens Cause Cancer in Cows" not something useless like "Cancer is Caused In Cows."