It’s true the headline is unclear. I don’t think the headline implies the SBU being corrupt though. I find it weird though that you would as an explanation pick the formal statements of the SBU which stands accused of overreach in the article. It’s becoming a major problem that often newspapers would just repeat statements by the security services without any further investigation into their claims, and here, where there’s at least a little more info on it, even G7 representatives complaining, you chose to state the official line.
I didn’t want to imply that, I would just generally distrust any initial statements by security forces and rather report on what the critics of those state.
It’s true the headline is unclear. I don’t think the headline implies the SBU being corrupt though. I find it weird though that you would as an explanation pick the formal statements of the SBU which stands accused of overreach in the article. It’s becoming a major problem that often newspapers would just repeat statements by the security services without any further investigation into their claims, and here, where there’s at least a little more info on it, even G7 representatives complaining, you chose to state the official line.
I could not find a section in the article where they rejected that information.
I didn’t want to imply that, I would just generally distrust any initial statements by security forces and rather report on what the critics of those state.
Ah ok.