On Tuesday morning, a 52-year-old man named Yurii was setting up his vegetable stall at a farmers' market in Kherson when an FPV drone found him. The video — released by Ukraine's National Police — shows it pursuing him around his van before exploding as he dives for cover. He survived: shock, shrapnel, concussion. He gave an interview from a hospital ward. * Here is how Reuters headlined that video: "Ukraine accuses Russia of war crime after video shows drone attacking vegetable seller in Kherson." Read the grammar. The subject of the sentence is Ukraine. The verb is accuses. The man being hunted between market stalls is a subordinate clause. And the drone — the thing on camera, the thing that detonated — belongs to nobody. Not a Russian drone. Just "a drone," as if it had wandered in from a hobby shop. * Euronews watched the same footage and wrote: "Shocking video shows Russian drone hunting civilian at Kherson market." Actor, action, victim, location. Zelensky called it Moscow's drone "safari" against civilians and said "Russia has gone mad." The Ukrainian police put it plainer still: the man "shows no signs of being a combatant, he is simply selling vegetables and fruit." * Now, wire-service people will tell you the hedge is the job: Reuters can't independently confirm who piloted a drone in a war zone, so responsibility arrives wrapped in "Ukraine accuses." That discipline exists for good reasons. But notice what it costs here. Kherson sits across the river from Russian positions and has endured documented FPV attacks on civilians for two years — the "human safari" has been reported by the UN's own investigators. At some point, "a drone" in Kherson is like "a shark" in a shark tank. There's one candidate. * And here's the asymmetry that should keep wire editors up at night. The day before, when a drone killed seven people on a beach in Gelendzhik — an incident where attribution genuinely IS contested, with Kyiv saying Russian air defense knocked the drone onto the sunbathers — RT went with: "At least seven killed, including three children, in Ukrainian drone attack on Russian Black Sea resort." No hedge. No 'Russia accuses.' The outlet that verifies nothing sounds certain; the outlet that verifies everything sounds unsure. Multiply that across every headline of this war and you get a strange arithmetic: caution, applied only by one side, starts working for the other. * Nobody's asking Reuters to become RT. The ask is smaller: when your own story says the video shows a drone chasing a man who sells vegetables, the headline shouldn't file it under diplomatic disagreements. Some things aren't accusations. Some things are footage.