The article seems to imply there is real malice and deliberate intent to deceive the public in the media coverage of civilian victims of Western attacks. This is one explanation, but I don&#x27;t see conclusive evidence of this in the article.<p>More probable explanation is that viewing public&#x27;s sympathy suffers from inherent biases and the media simply follows those biases. It&#x27;s a well-known fact that media prefers headlines that are more likely to trigger emotional response.<p>Also non-Western civilian victims have been a lot more frequent and the media has a bias towards reporting events that stand out such as unintentional killing of Western hostages by a drone strike.<p>(Not claiming this outcome is moral - just saying that it may unfortunately arise without malicious intent on the part of the media)