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.
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.
For reasons already stated, it’s not hard to understand. You should read Chomsky if you don’t understand the importance of words.
Again, remove ballistic and it changes nothing but adding it makes it sound worse. That’s sensationalism.
There’s no bias and I’m pretty sure I told you why I’m my last response didn’t I .
No you haven’t explained anything, you just keep repeating the same thing and I keep telling you that’s not actually sensationalism, since it’s not.
Try something else, sensationalism isn’t just adding words, it’s adding words to intentionally mislead.
You’re the one misleading here, not the headline.
Try again.
I’ve repeatedly explained sensationalism, I’m not sure why you’re saying I haven’t.
It literally is.
Not at all.
Try what again?
You haven’t explained sensationalism, you’ve sensationalized the definition really.
Sensationalism requires intent, there is no intent to mislead here so there is no sensationalism. Sorry you can’t think critically enough to comprehend this.
Try to explain this is sensationalism, your explanation you’ve tried doesn’t work since intent is needed and it’s lacking here. So try again to prove this is sensationalism.
Heres a hint, omitting words can also be sensationalism, so yeah… its not just adding words like you’ve previously claimed.
How so, should be easy to example how I’m wrong.