Sometimes yes, sometimes it is correct to use murder.

But I was just using it as well known an example of how even a short sentence can have implicit bias while appearing to be simply factual. Not referring to anything specific.

Sometimes using killed is the most factual, sometimes it isn't. Saying someone died is often factual as well. It's really dependent on context what word to choose and they can create a very different narrative.

It also can simply be passive versus active voice in sentence structure.

There was an interesting case where Reuters headline was about police in South Africa killed protesting miners. They had a headline video that showed the police opening fire and an officer getting them to stop shooting. And a second "uncut" video on their RSS feed that wasn't published in any headline that showed the miners were actually a giant mob carrying machetes, sticks, clubs and a few had guns which were fired into the air. The mob started charging the police line and when they opened fire the mob scattered. There was no mention of the police officer that had been beaten to death in the same area the night before by the protesters.

Both were completely factual reports, but they lacked context, and were subsequently widely used to demonise the police.

(Now, don't get me wrong, cops are usually at fault, and the wider situation of why did those miners need to protest etc is a different topic. But in that specific instance there was a lot of context missing to the individual actions)

Read the linked source FFS.

Me: Provides evidence that in decades past last century they were paid for and did dirty work of British intelligence, at no point were the people responsible cast out, at no point was this influence purged and processes and organs put in place to prevent this

Me: Also provides evidence they are in the bag as of the twenty-teens they were doing propaganda work for the British against Russia in coordination with the British state through cutouts

You: um acktually do you have any proof they're still doing that this month? No? Checkmate.

Yeah it's called a pattern of behavior. Why would they change? What would cause this? Sudden secret come to Jesus moment that fits your idealistic wants and needs in this particular argument? The burden of proof is on YOU and on THEM to show a sustained pattern of change. More than to show that but to admit, call out, and have a reckoning about their past behavior, bring it to the front, make everyone aware of it, apologize, and explain how they're changing and what they're specifically doing to prove this isn't happening.

Partnering with Tass in what way? As wire agencies? Carrying some of their stories? That's proof of nothing. You think because some org that's deep in with the intelligence apparatus of one state has some casual or professional cover level contact with a state media organ of a rival state that is proof of what? Impartiality? That they're actually Russian spies using British intelligence?

What I linked claims they agreed to use journalistic contacts within Russia to influence Russians and others within the CIS sphere for the interests and goals of the UK. If I was doing that I'd want contacts like that including contracts to carry out that work and legitimize my stories to my targets. I'd want to pretend to be friendly, professional and open while carrying out this work.

The new leaks illustrate in alarming detail how Reuters and the BBC – two of the largest and most distinguished news organizations in the world – attempted to answer the British foreign ministry’s call for help in improving its “ability to respond and to promote our message across Russia,” and to “counter the Russian government’s narrative.” Among the UK FCO’s stated goals, according to the director of the CDMD, was to “weaken the Russian State’s influence on its near neighbours.”

Reuters and the BBC solicited multimillion-dollar contracts to advance the British state’s interventionist aims, promising to cultivate Russian journalists through FCO-funded tours and training sessions, establish influence networks in and around Russia, and promote pro-NATO narratives in Russian-speaking regions.

In several proposals to the British Foreign Office, Reuters boasted of a global influence network of 15,000 journalists and staff, including 400 inside Russia.