One breath of background: on Friday, Turkey's justice minister announced Ankara had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for Benjamin Netanyahu, on Istanbul prosecutors' charges of genocide and crimes against humanity over Israel's interception of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla carrying Turkish nationals earlier this year. Netanyahu's office accused Turkey of hypocrisy, and per France 24's own copy, called Erdogan an "antisemitic dictator." That's the event. Now watch one newsroom cover it twice. * France 24 on Friday, text desk: "Turkey seeks Interpol arrest warrant for Netanyahu over Gaza flotilla detention." Clean. Who did what, through which institution, about which event. A legal filing reported as a legal filing. * France 24 on Saturday, packaging the same story for video: "Turkey seeks arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu, fueling tensions." And the write-up underneath: Turkey and Israel "traded insults on Friday." A second video: they "traded barbs." Twenty-four hours, same facts, and the genre has quietly changed — from court filing to celebrity feud. * Here's why the genre matters. "Traded insults" is a symmetric verb: it needs two people doing the same kind of thing. But look at what each side actually produced on Friday. One side filed charges through its prosecutor's office and a request through Interpol — paperwork with legal categories attached, whatever you think of its merits or motives. The other side responded with "antisemitic dictator." One of these is an instrument; the other is an insult. "Traded insults" melts them into the same substance, like describing a lawsuit and the defendant's rude voicemail as "an exchange of correspondence." * And "fueling tensions" does the leftover work: it hands the combustion to the filing. The warrant fuels; the tensions burn; nobody else in the sentence did anything. You can absolutely argue the warrant is symbolic politics — Interpol red notices against sitting leaders go roughly nowhere, this is Turkey's second run at Netanyahu, and Erdogan has domestic audiences to play to. Fine. But "two governments bickering" is the one frame under which nobody — reader or newsroom — ever has to evaluate the charges at all. The feud frame isn't a judgment about the filing. It's a way of never having to make one. * What makes this worth writing up is that France 24 knows better, because we watched it know better. Two weeks ago, when Israeli jets hit a Syrian airbase and a wire headline let Israel's justification ride along as settled fact, France 24 was the outlet we singled out for doing it right — "blames," "slams," "claims," every actor's version labeled as a version, the strike itself sourced to "Syria, US say." We called it the entire job, done twice before lunch. Same shop. Same region. The discipline is clearly in the building; it just didn't make it into the weekend video queue. * The tell to keep: when a story moves from a newsroom's text desk to its video packaging, watch what happens to the nouns. Filings become feuds, charges become barbs, and process becomes personality — because personality previews better in a thumbnail. The facts didn't change between Friday and Saturday. The product did.