You're viewing a single thread.
All news should use neutal language.
If journalist want to express their personal opinions, that's what editorials are for.
A simple rewrite of the article title on the left to: "Russia annexes formerly Ukrainian territory. Ukraine and NATO declares the act to be unlawful". Like this is much better, less biased title. Don't make the claim yourself, tell who is saying it.
Media uses that tactic often, where they always platform the statements by Israel (that are very frequently lies that aren’t challenged at all even though it would be very easy to) but much less frequently from Palestinian sources. This makes it really easy for Israel to spread its narrative while Palestinians remain unheard and misunderstood.
Russia annexes formerly Ukrainian territory. Ukraine and NATO declares the act to be unlawful”
"Formerly Ukraine Oblast/territories referendum results choose joining Russia, with overwhelming celebratory joy. NATO declares democracy only valid when NATO approves of result."
It's not like left article title is wrong. That's what Russia is doing, illegally annexing Ukrainian land.
They are correct, I do agree with the claim that the act is illegal. However, I don't think that's the job as a journalist. They should tell only the objective truth. Otherwise you get to conflicts lile Israel-Palestine and they start injecting their own biases into that, and try to frame Israel as the "good guys" and demonize Palestinians, even if they aren't Hamas.
But the objective truth is that Putin has illegally annexed Ukrainian land. It is what is happening in reality, without using any "good guys bad guys" wording.
It seens your issue is more that the same objectivity isn't used in the second article.
“Annexes” literally means “takes control of illegally.”
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
So, according to your link:
Definition:
Annexation,[1] in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory.
Opinion of Internation Law:
In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.
International law says its illegal. The word doesn't define it being inherently illegal.
The international law also says a lot of other things are illegal, but those acts are not inherently illegal, because the legality isn't inherent to the word's definition.