Sixth straight night of American airstrikes on Iran: bridges at Bandar Khamir, the airport at Iranshahr, a train station in Bandar Abbas, and at least seven people dead, according to Iranian state media. * Euronews ran it like this: “US airstrikes hit Iranian civilian sites as Tehran attacks Gulf neighbours.” Flat. Declarative. Hit civilian sites — no reportedly, no according to, nobody's fingerprints on the claim at all. * Then comes its own opening sentence, which quietly rats out the headline: the US struck civilian infrastructure early Friday, “Iranian state media reported.” The newsroom knew exactly whose account it was carrying. It just filed that detail one line below the only place most readers will ever look. * This isn't pedantry about a missing hedge. In a war, “civilian sites” is not a descriptive flourish — it is the entire legal argument. Deliberately attacking civilian objects is a war crime. A headline that asserts it has convicted somebody. A headline that attributes it has reported something. Those are two different acts, and only one of them is journalism. * Al Jazeera took the other road to roughly the same place: “Why is the US attacking southern Iran's civilian infrastructure?” A question, which sounds more careful and isn't. Ask why the US is attacking civilian infrastructure and you haven't asked anything — the premise is already sitting in the passenger seat, and the reader nods at it on the way past. * Give Al Jazeera this, though: the body does the work its headline skipped. It says plainly that the civilian characterisations come from Iranian officials and Iranian media. It concedes the law here is a grey zone. And it prints CENTCOM's version of the target list — “Iranian command centres, air defence sites, missile and drone capabilities, and coastal surveillance facilities.” The evidence is all there. It's just downstairs from a question that already made up its mind. * NBC failed in the opposite direction: “U.S. strikes bridges around key port in Iran, expanding campaign in battle over Hormuz.” Not one word of that is false. Bridges were hit. There is a battle over Hormuz. But “battle over Hormuz” converts a bombed railway station into cartography — a campaign, a chokepoint, a strategic map with no one standing on it. The word civilian does appear in NBC's story. Never where a scrolling thumb will meet it. * And the frustrating part is that the disagreement is real, not decorative. CENTCOM says military logistics infrastructure. Tehran says water plants, food silos, a hospital in Ahvaz. A bridge outside a port is honestly both — a supply line to a general, a way to work for everyone else. That ambiguity is precisely why the attribution belongs in the headline instead of hiding under it. When the facts are contested, whose facts they are becomes the story. * Three newsrooms, one night of bombs, three different nouns for what got hit. Euronews took Tehran's noun and stamped it as its own. NBC took the Pentagon's map and left the people off it. Al Jazeera at least showed its work — underneath a question that had already answered itself.