Let us say that person A reports on the responses of persons B and C following the conduct of persons D and E respectively.
Person D’s deliberate actions had offended person B. Person E’s deliberate actions had resulted in several members of person C’s kith and kin being turned into charcoal sticks.
Both persons B and C respond by holding a street protest. Person F, who is of person E’s kith and kin – but not responsible for their actions – is present at person C’s protest.
Would it be reasonable for person A to describe person B’s response as a “peaceful protest”? Yes. Even if members of person B’s kith and kin – but not person B – just had shot, hacked and burned to death persons G, H, I, J, K, L and M? Yes.
Right, when describing person C’s response, would it be reasonable to expect person A to term it as a “peaceful protest”? Yes.
Did person A do so? No.
Given person A’s sympathetic framing of their description of person B’s response, would it be reasonable to expect the spirit of their description of person’s C response to be similar; and not, for the sake of argument, emphasis the disruptive element which annoyed person F who responded violently. Yes.
Did person A do so? No.
Does person A see persons B, and E and F as being of the same kith and kin? Yes.
What a tool.
