Thread by @marcowenjones

Thread/1 I wanted to compare in this case the @guardian reporting of the murder of Brent Renaud and the murder of #ShireenAbuAkleh . I will stick to the headline. Caveats at the end, but I just wanted to highlight a few obvious biases.

2/ The best way to do this would be to re-write the Brent Renaud headline in the style of the #ShireenAbuAqla piece to highlight differences.

a) The killing of Brent Renaud is now an accusation by a Kyiv Police Chief (creates doubt). This opens the door to 'he said she said'

3/
b) Renaud's name is removed from the main headline (impersonal and cold)
c) The subheading in the #ShireenAbuAqla is clear to present Israeli narrative so this has been done to the Renaud article. I sourced it from Russia Today, which is state-controlled, and suggests that

4) ...Ukrainians may have been responsible for killing Renaud.

This raises questions of when a journalist should include the other 'side'. I am not clear if any Russian officials made a comment on Renaud's death, or indeed, if Guardian journalists asked for comments from

5) Russian officials. I am somewhat cynical of narratives that constantly invoke comparisons to Ukraine but it is clear Russian narratives are viewed much or sceptically than Israeli narratives, even though Israel is an occupying forcing accused of Apartheid, with a known record

6/ of attacking, killing and assaulting citizens and journalists. Of course it is hard to compare cases, and larger studies need to be done, but these examples do a lot to highlight some obvious discrepancies when reporting on the Occupation

7/ Just a note, the Guardian article has update the subheading (but not the main heading), in a way that still creates ambiguity (albeit in a more hesistant way)