Calling a spade a manual earth-moving device

By now you may have seen the firsthand accounts of what the most moral army in the world was doing in Gaza—but if you only read the U.S. press accounts, you've been missing something.  Here's the London Times quoting one soldier's story:

"When we entered a house, we were supposed to bust down the door and start shooting inside and just go up storey by storey… I call that murder. Each storey, if we identify a person, we shoot them. I asked myself – how is this reasonable?"

But here's the L.A. Times' version of the same story:

"When we entered a house, we were supposed to bust down the door and start shooting inside and just go up story by story," he was quoted as saying. "Each story, if we identify a person, we shoot them. I asked myself: 'How is this reasonable?' "

Apparently "I call that murder" was a little too strong for American readers, so they dropped it right out of the middle of the quote and inserted "he was quoted as saying" instead.  And not just once; here's how the L.A. Times wrote up another atrocity:

In another incident, a different squad leader said an elderly woman was shot dead on orders of a company commander as she walked on a road about 100 yards away.

That squad leader said he argued with his commander over the rules of engagement.

But here's the London Times version:

The same unnamed NCO said that his commanding officer ordered soldiers on to a rooftop to shoot an old woman crossing a main street during the fighting, which a Palestinian rights groups said left 1,434 people dead, 960 of them civilians.

"I don't know whether she was suspicious, not suspicious, I don't know her story," the NCO said. "I do know that my officer sent people to the roof in order to take her out… It was cold-blooded murder."

Not in the L.A. Times, it wasn't.  Judging by the 270 current hits for "murder" on their web site, they haven't suddenly become reticent about using the word; I wonder why this case is different?  Maybe the editor just felt that the carefully crafted third-hand exposition of "that squad leader said he argued with his commander over the rules of engagement" gave the story more punch than some superfluous direct quote about "cold-blooded murder"?

The crowning irony: the L.A. Times specifically mentioned the "gripping language cited by two Israeli newspapers", before proceeding to bowdlerize it.

UPDATE: The self-same Richard Boudreaux who wrote the L.A. Times article cited above followed it up today with an article titled "Israel soldier calls order during Gaza assault 'murder'", which featured three more instances of the m-word in the text in addition to its prominent placement in the title.  Is this proof that major media outlets look to my web site to put their fingers on the hot, beating pulse of public opinion?  I think the answer is clear.

Comments

[Bjorn]

Damn. Thanks for posting this.

[SteveB]

I like this comment from the Times website:

Most of the commentators are missing the point.The rules of engagement govern Israeli military which is why such allegations are subject to an enquiry because it goes again the grain & ethos of the IDF. Such an enquiry wouldnt take place in most countries. Israel can still hold her head up high!

Leonard, London , UK

I think Bush himself said something like this after Abu Ghraib. Let's all give ourselves a pat on the back for "investigating" our own crimes. In fact, I think its actually necessary for us to commit horrendous war crimes from time to time just so we can demonstrate this admirable investigatory feature of our democracy.