I would say that an organization that needs to be highly objective should not call him one.
They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.
> They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.
Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants?
I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion.
>Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants?
Then why can't you accept the "thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants" of him committing war crimes?
>I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion.
I think war crimes are bad. There is no "fact" involved in that statement, it is purely a value judgment and therefore an opinion. Yet I think it is inarguably a better opinion than believing that war crimes are good. Would you disagree?
Because the definition of a war criminal is something who was convicted of a war crime, not being accused of committing them or observed doing something that could be considered one.
You can't fact check opinions, no matter how morally superior they are to another one, so I don't know what your point is there.
Which are verified to meet a specific standard through a conviction in this case, which is the exact opposite of the scenario that generated the quote above.
Is an accused murderer still considered a murderer if they are not convicted of the crime?
This idea that something can't be confirmed as true unless a court says it is bizarre and totally antithetical to the idea of journalism. Journalists are not court stenographers.
Sometimes it is entirely reasonable to call someone a murderer even if they lack a conviction. I have no problem saying John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln. I have no problem saying Hitler committed war crimes. These are simply facts of history and your policing of language is implicitly arguing against those facts. So I'm going to ask you directly and I won't reply if you don't directly answer this question, do you believe that Hitler committed war crimes?
The idea that a criminal conviction needs to occur for someone to be called a criminal in the media should not be remotely controversial. Journalists certainly can and do perform research that can lead to arrests and/or convictions, but are effectively a mouthpiece for the court stenographer once a trial is underway.
An unbiased reporter would (and nearly all journalist actually do) say something like "accused <insert criminal charge here> <insert name here> <insert rest of sentence here>" at any point in a criminal proceeding prior to the jury handing down a guilty verdict.
The fact that you only seem to be able to generate examples of extremely high profile situations where the alleged perpetrator was killed while evading capture (by themselves or law enforcement) only strengthens my argument.
Or they could just say Hitler committed war crimes but killed himself before he could be put on trail. Because that's what he did. It's not an opinion.
They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.