1st of all, I'd like to make clear that I'm just translating this post to English. I didn't write it.
They could have informed the same article in a more eloquent way. There are infinite titles with different meanings that they could have used. Some recommendations (the amount of words is written because it's an important variable in the titles):
1)"Violence escalation: Hamas attacks and kills an Israeli farmer, Israel retaliates and accidentally dies a Palestinian girl" (17 words with a pro-Israeli tone, you erase the world "accidentally" and you get 16 words in which they share the responsibility).
2) "Hamas attacks, Israel retaliates: An Israeli farmer and a Palestinian girl die as a consequence" (15 words, shared responsibilities, neutral tone).
3) "Violence escalation in Middle East: An Israeli farmer and a Palestinian girl die as a consequence" (16 words, hyper-neutral tone).
4) "Palestinian terrorism murders an
Israeli farmer: In the Israel retaliation a Palestinian girl dies" (14
words, objective. The "murders" word should be changed with a more
neutral synonymous.
5) "Palestinian girl dies in Israeli retaliations for the Palestinian attacks" (10 words, shows that both sides attacked, yet the focus is in the Palestinian death, the farmer isn't mentioned.).
6) "Tragedy in Middle East: Two dead in clashing between Hamas and Israel, between them a Palestinian girl" (17 words, enough yellow to be a titular, the focus is still in the Palestinian girl, no mention about the farmer and the Israeli victims aren't identified. Looks like both of the deaths are Palestinians).
7) "Palestinian terrorism hits again: A farmer murdered. Israel retaliates with an air strike" (13 words, Pro-Israeli, the girl isn't even mentioned).
8) "Israel farmer dies in Palestinian attacks. In the Israeli retaliations a Palestinian girl dies." (14 words, neutral tone).
There were many ways of telling the notice. I think that the appropiate would have been something like the 2), 3), or 4) titulars. Some may tend to pick 2), others for the 4)... But they are acceptable. A titular like the 5) one es what we are used to, and wouldn't be surpricing if the article was published that way. Yet, they went even further: here is the titular that the notice finally got:
(Translation: "Israel kills a Palestinian girl in retaliation for the death of a farmer.
Palestinian activists attacks with mortars a Kibutz in south Israel and the retaliation comes at a bombing form").
Incredible. When I saw it it made me wanna cry. Israel kills girl, the farmer dies. K'mon man! Isn't the 5th titular Anti-Israeli enough? It could also have been "Palestinian girl dies in Israeli retaliations for the death of a farmer", and it was Anti-Israeli enough to be pressed. But no, there's the need to remark that Israel kills, there was the need to use an "Active Voice". The "Passive Voice" is only reserved for the Israeli deaths, that simple die (nobody kills them!), when it's exactly the contrary: The girl dies at an Israeli attack that was aimed at the terrorist that made the attack, while the Israeli farmer was the objective of the terrorist attack. Everything was distorted in the titular. Obviously, the tuft doesn't get wasted: There weren't terrorists. Neither militiants or militias, no... Just "activists". Obviously there also was the need to remark the desproportionated retaliation. Some attack with mortars, others bomb (in the article there's the remark that the mortars are "home made", just like the collars sold at the France Park).
| My Profile
"El Pais". Bad Press blog
