Title: ‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’
Reality: Activist was "protesting" (ie. camping out) at the future site of a police training facility, cops arrived to kick them out, and there was a shoot-out that resulted in the activist being shot dead and a cop being injured.
I'm not sure how the title got past the editors, considering how misleading it is. It's technically true that the "assassinated in cold blood" part was a quote, but presenting it at face value, when there's little evidence of wrongdoing by the cops is wholly irresponsible for a seemingly reputable publication like the guardian. A much better headline would be "activist killed in shootout with police", or even "‘Assassinated in cold blood’, Mother claims: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’"
Also, I noticed the article was also exceedingly skeptical about the state's version of events:
>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday.
but the press release have since provided additional details to support the state's version of events
>Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun.
But I'll let that slide given that the update came on January 20th, and the article was published early January 21th at 5am.