But when the NYT reports a murder, or a response to a murder, it doesn’t show a bloody picture of a dissected corpse. The equivalent is to accompany the headline “Police Have No Leads In Last Week’s Murder” with a similarly gory picture. There’s a lot of political capital in doing what the NYT did, in choosing that particular picture. In wars it is always advantageous to portray one’s own atrocities in as cold a way as possible, while playing up as much as possible those committed by the opposing side.

Both pictures seem to be conscious editorial decisions to portray the conflict in a particular light. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the BBC is coming totally out of left field with its picture, it is not a story specifically about the bombing but about the Israeli response to the bombing, and the picture is essentially about Israeli response to terror. It’s a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but I don’t think any more of a stretch than NYT’s decision.

The BBC picture has nothing to do with the bombing whereas the New York Times picture does.

Alas, there is no such thing as “a rational appraisal of the situation” when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

Even in the Falkland’s war, claims from both sides about the number of casualties, etc., were reported as exactly that.

To imply that one is biased and the other is accurate is really strange. Obviously, the New York Times were emotionalising the debate in a very different way. It’s a very traumatic picture to see, and it makes you feel angry at the people who did that horrible thing, in turn making you angry at Palestinians in general and less able to really take part in a rational appraisal of the situation. I have yet to see footage of atrocities committed by the Israeli side, which are surprisingly more numerous than those committed by suicide bombers, given the same kind of attention. Even the BBC picture is one that, while showing a particular (true) aspect of the conflict, does not seem to be about scrambling the emotions of the reader to an extent where they react with anger where perhaps a bit of thought is required.

It just looks like a stock pic that could have been taken any time in the past ten years or more. They could have used any pic they wanted from the bombing.

I think the use of this photo is a good insight into the mindset of staff at the BBC. This photograph sums up everything that Israel is to them–men shooting at stone-throwing boys.