Two ballistic missiles were fired from Houthi rebel-controlled Yemen toward a US warship in the Gulf of Aden, after the US Navy responded to a distress call from a commercial tanker that had been seized by armed individuals, the US military said Sunday.
The tanker, identified as the Central Park, had been carrying a cargo of phosphoric acid when its crew called for help that “they were under attack from an unknown entity,” the US Central Command said in a statement.
The USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, and allied ships from a counter-piracy task force that operates in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia responded to the call for help and “demanded release of the vessel” upon arrival, Central Command said.
“Subsequently, five armed individuals debarked the ship and attempted to flee via their small boat,” said the statement posted on social media platform X.
It’s called sensationaliam, adding a detail for no reason in the headline is the very definition of it.
I don’t. Many people will, I guarantee it.
No, I’m not trying to make anything scary saying it’s sensationalized is the very opposite of that.
It’s not sensationalized, it’s an important distinction.
It would be like an article mentioning a vehicle involved in a collision is a truck instead of a car. How would that be sensationalism?
Again, you’re the one attempting to make a non-issue scary. This isn’t sensationalism by any stretch of the defintion.
It’s not.
Does the word ballistic materially change the subject of the article? No it’s an unnecessary adjective. And yes your example would be as well. They tried to make it sound worse, it’s a shitty Iranian missile fired well under maximum range it being ballistic is irrelevant aside from being an idiotic choice.
Not at all. How exactly do you get that out of my comments.
How does telling you the type of missle make it sound worse? Because you think and want it to…?
Any headline can be stripped down and made to be sensationalized if you can never ever use an adjective. It’s only sensationalized in your head since you want it to be, you’re the biased one here.
How is my example sensationalized? Please explain to the rest of class so we can understand why you’re so biased here.
Except a ballistic missile often invokes the image of an low tech, unguided mortar more than it does an intercontinental nuke. You calling it “sensationalized” is implying it’s the worse thing when it’s clearly not.
Aww still salty Mr bigot? Here to make fun of my disability or some shitty racist take on houthis?
Ed: almost forgot. You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi.
Boat A responded to a call from Boat B that was under attack in the water. Boat A fired warning shots and used a weapon to deflect an incoming weapon. No injuries or damage were reported. The incident is being investigated.
Better?
Well yes, but actually no.
We both know you didn’t have to remove all the detail along with the sensationalized detail. You’re just trying to be petty about it.
Well that’s their point, where’s the line of sensationalized detail? Calling it a missile can be sensationalism to some people.
Also, omitting details is sensationalism as well, it’s not just adding words. They sensationalized the headline with omissions to make a point.
Take your complaint up with US Central Command, they’re the ones who described them as “ballistic missiles”. It’s not sensationalizing to use the phrase your sources use, they’d be criticized for bad reporting if they just said “missiles”
They are ballistic missiles, the fact that it’s in the title is the irrelevant part because people see “ballistic” and go ooo that must be bad when in reality a ballistic missile against a us destroyer is an insanely idiotic waste of money.
Why would people think ballistic is bad? You seem to be the only one inferring that here.
