BBC reporting of military inquests

[Flashman's Ghost]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7719847.stm

Is it just me or are the BBC's reports on military inquests either inadvertenly or by design misleadingly written. Take this recent one as an example

Capt David Hicks, 26, from Berkshire, died after sustaining shrapnel wounds at the remote Inkerman base in Afghanistan on 11 August last year.

His commanding officer, Col Stuart Carver, told an inquest that protection for his troops was "unacceptable".

Coroner David Masters recorded a verdict that he was unlawfully killed.

Am I the only one who reads that and thinks that it's designed to read like he was unlawfully killed because troop protection was unacceptable? Rather than he was actually unlawfully killed by the Taleban and the MoDs failings are irrelevant to the verdict.

I've noticed this a few times, but I accept it may just be my reading...

[MrG]

I think thats a clear and concise version of what happened. Now i dont believe that the BBC set out to mislead, but there is the distinct possibility of someone reading into it, which I do think could be avoided.

[Flashman's Ghost]

This isn't the worse example - some stories spend the entire time talking about MoD negilgence and then at the end say the verdict was unlawfully killed. Now, it's technically correct, but the context would lead people to think they were unlawfully killed by the MoD.

I mean I'm relatively well versed in this type of thing and I had to ring up an old friend to check what it meant (well i rang for another reason, but checked it up when I was talking to him). Once or twice, i can understand: a bit of sloppy writing gets through - it happens. But seriously it happens all the time, when all they have to do is add 'unlawfully killed by the Taliban' or 'Afghan insurgents' or whatever this weeks current buzz word is