A Terrorist Is Killed. How Reuters Reported It Will Make You Sick.

As The Daily Wire reported, on Monday, terrorists attacked the heart of Israel, striking Jerusalem and injuring 21 people. Two buses exploded and burst into flames at the peak of afternoon rush hour. The attack unearthed memories of the horrific Palestinian intifada in the early 2000s, when terrorists frequently bombed buses and donned suicide vests to murder Israeli civilians.

On Wednesday, Hamas officials confirmed that one of the terrorists involved in the attack was wounded and later died of his injuries. Here’s how Reuters chose to report the good news:

The egregious headline was the product of a joint collaboration that included “reporting” from Ronen Zvulun in Jerusalem and Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza. The “writing” of the article was attributed to Ori Lewis, while the “editing” was assigned to Tom Heneghan.

Aside from the terrorist-sympathizing headline, the article itself is littered with editorial flourishes. “A Palestinian militant from the occupied West Bank who was wounded when his bomb exploded on an Israeli commuter bus in Jerusalem on Monday has died, an Israeli hospital spokeswoman and a pro-Hamas website said on Wednesday,” begins the article. The writers couldn’t even get themselves to call the attacker a “terrorist,” instead opting for the euphemism “Palestinian militant.” By stressing the seemingly “occupied” status of the “West Bank,” the writers implicitly assign a motive, and perhaps even an excuse, for the terrorist’s murderous rampage that left innocent civilians grievously wounded. The remaining editorial flourishes are more insidious, if not more subtle. The entire article is written in the passive voice, allowing room to displace blame. The terrorist himself did not detonate his device (even though that’s self-evident), rather “his bomb exploded.” The subject here is not the terrorist, but rather the “bomb” itself. The language shifts responsibility for the violence from the Palestinian terrorist to the device itself, as it had the mind and will of its own.

Halfway through the article, the writers employ the same tactic, manipulating language to take readers’ attention from the principal actors responsible for the horrific crime against civilians. Again, the writers state, “The explosion blew up a bus,” rather than “the terrorists blew up a bus.” The direct cause of the crime here is again “the explosion,” rather than the terrorists that caused the explosion.

Reuter’s unfortunate bias is made abundantly clear in the final paragraph of the article:

Factors driving the violence include Palestinian bitterness over stalled statehood negotiations and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, increased Jewish access to a disputed Jerusalem shrine and Islamist-led calls for Israel's destruction.

Confounding the causal relationship once again, the writers opt for the ambiguous phrase “factors driving the violence.” More importantly, the writers here explicitly defend the actions of the terrorists, arguing “Palestinian bitterness over stalled statehood negotiations and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, increased Jewish access to a disputed Jerusalem shrine,” are “factors” that must be considered before rendering judgment on the terrorists. “Islamist-led calls for Israel's destruction,” are but an afterthought when it comes to understanding the motives of civilian-targeting fanatic terrorists.

Through the calculated manipulation of diction and syntax, Reuters humanizes the terrorists responsible for a violent bus explosion, while shamelessly blaming the victims. Rather than subjecting readers to the deceit of linguistic parlor tricks, the writers could have just stated bluntly, "Terrorists attack Israelis civilians, BUT the victims deserved it." This sickening "BUT" is the hallmark of every terrorist apologist since 9/11.

From Noam Chomsky to Jeremy Corbyn, members of the Regressive Left have enshrined this "BUT" in infamy. When Islamic terrorists murdered the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, there was a "BUT." "But the content they drew was 'offensive," they said. "But their ideological views don't align with mine." With every "BUT," the Regressive Left grants the victims of Islamic terror attacks a second death. This morally bankrupt "BUT" should make all men and women of conscience nauseous. It's beyond cowardly; it's victim blaming, pure and simple.

Islamic terrorists killed innocent people. Period. End stop. Qualifying adjectives following this assertion signal nothing more than sympathy and alignment with the oppressor.

What's Your Reaction?