Edit: I’ve edited the title to make it clear that India is making this allegation. Unfortunately since it just happened we dont know much else about the man, but that accusation is something he has in common with the previous assassination, so it’s worth mentioning rather than the story just being “another guy from India got killed” which didn’t really highlight the correlation with the other case.
Alleged by parties who have all the incentives to shape that specific narrative.
What if I just started following you around and alleging you’re a pedophile? Then, what if you happen to be murdered? The headline would read, “Alleged Pedophile Gunned Down”.
How much would the word “alleged” mean to you then? Do you see the problem now?
I hear what you’re saying, but what do you propose instead? “Another Indian man has been murdered in Canada”? Is seems that that would kind of bury the lede, which is the implication of a connection between India accusing him of this and him being murdered. This seems like a difficult situation to balance, and perhaps there should be a different decision made in a case where someone is alive like your example, vs. this case, where the person is dead.
The video doesn’t describe him as an activist. The only thing we really know about him is what the Indian government has accused him of. So I’ve amended the title to make it clear that India claims he’s a Khalistani terrorist (and they also claim he’s a gangster for some reason?).
STOP calling them terrorists, even if you’re just parroting India’s press release verbage.
You’re literally just regurgitating the most incendiary parts of Modi’s BJP propaganda factories and inserting it into the Western media ecosystem.
“alleged” is the operative word here.
Edit: I’ve edited the title to make it clear that India is making this allegation. Unfortunately since it just happened we dont know much else about the man, but that accusation is something he has in common with the previous assassination, so it’s worth mentioning rather than the story just being “another guy from India got killed” which didn’t really highlight the correlation with the other case.
Alleged by parties who have all the incentives to shape that specific narrative.
What if I just started following you around and alleging you’re a pedophile? Then, what if you happen to be murdered? The headline would read, “Alleged Pedophile Gunned Down”.
How much would the word “alleged” mean to you then? Do you see the problem now?
I hear what you’re saying, but what do you propose instead? “Another Indian man has been murdered in Canada”? Is seems that that would kind of bury the lede, which is the implication of a connection between India accusing him of this and him being murdered. This seems like a difficult situation to balance, and perhaps there should be a different decision made in a case where someone is alive like your example, vs. this case, where the person is dead.
“Another Canadian based Sikh Activitist Murdered as Indian-Candian Crisis Widens”
The video doesn’t describe him as an activist. The only thing we really know about him is what the Indian government has accused him of. So I’ve amended the title to make it clear that India claims he’s a Khalistani terrorist (and they also claim he’s a gangster for some reason?).
There’s no such thing as a Khalistani terrorist. Khalistani separatist or Sikh alleged to be a terrorist by Indian government frames it better.
Yeah, that works well, thanks! You got the job. :)
This implies guilt. This is pedaling India’s narrative, even with the alleged qualifier.