How convenient! Our biases comfort our ignorance. And yes there is malice. If you seek to hide civilian casualties your excuse cannot be the disinterest of the

How convenient! Our biases comfort our ignorance. And yes there is malice. If you seek to hide civilian casualties your excuse cannot be the disinterest of the deceived. The lies which hide drone terror by framing it as a war, these lies cause great human suffering by prolonging the inexcusable. How could the assumption of "all adult males killed must have been guilty" not be evidence of deception? Even if we were so innocent of the situation to assume politicians are lying to protect us, they would still be lying. I don't know your ethics but mine do not encompass knowingly spreading lies. Especially when it's done to protect one's position. A position of great power, I must add. Journalists have the means to uncover these lies. When they choose to spread them instead, because this is the easier option, they become complicit. It may not be malice in the sense of "evil for the sake of it" but I wouldn't set the bar down there.