The minimum dignity: saying that they have been killed

I don't know if journalism can stop wars, but openly identifying who is killing whom is the minimum function the media can still perform. With gender-based violence, a change has taken place. Before, in the headlines, we often read things like "A woman dies...", with formulas laden with caution, but which ended up hiding or minimizing the other part of the equation in the vast majority of cases: "A man kills...". Something similar happens with the genocide in Gaza: depending on the media, it might seem that Palestinians have a resolute obsession with dying a little for no reason, even to annoy. This festival of euphemisms and the intentional twisting of headlines could be seen these days with Israel's flagrant violation of the ceasefire. New York Times wrote: "It was unclear whether the attacks actually ended the ceasefire agreed between Israel and Hamas that went into effect in mid-January." And CNN ran with the headline "Israel says it is carrying out 'extensive attacks' against Hamas in Gaza, adding doubt to the fragile ceasefire." When the bodies are counted in the hundreds, perhaps it would be time to resolve the doubts and begin to embrace the certainty that yes, someone has violated the ceasefire at the Arc de Triomphe.

And what we were saying: that mania of hiding the active subject. Headline of the Guardian"The ceasefire in Gaza is broken and more than 320 Palestinians are killed in intensified attacks." Outrage soon led to the sentence being changed to "Israel violates the ceasefire and more than 400 Palestinians are killed in Israeli army attacks." Now the story is well framed, but it's a shame that it has to be in the second column, due to popular pressure. It's the minimum act of dignity the victims deserve: that the executioners be named.