Sometimes, media bias is hard to spot.  We all know the big examples, like Bob Simon's "60 Minutes" program but it is many times the minor items that keep reinforcing negative images.  This Ynet story, for example, disturbed me

A Palestinian man was killed Monday morning near the West Bank religious village of Beit Yatir in South Mount Hebron. The Israel Defense Forces said the man was a terrorist attempting to hurt soldiers, while Palestinian residents claimed that he was part of a group attempting to infiltrate Israel to look for work.

According to the army, an IDF force was fired on from a moving car at around 9 am. The troops fired back at the vehicle and killed the gunman. There were no injuries among the soldiers. A military inquiry into the incident revealed that the gunman had slowed down as he approached the soldiers and then opened fire at them.

What bothered me?

No, not the army's "disproportionate" response (just kidding).

This phrase: "the West Bank religious village of Beit Yatir".

So, there's something special about a Jewish community being "religious"? Is Tel Aviv always described as "a secular city"?  Does Ynet mean the residents are all "fanatics", because that's what religious people seem to be in the press?

What's the implication? Why that adjective?

And, in addition, as it was pointed out to me, actually the second paragraph should have been the lead-off one.  The initial attack, not the response, is the most important element.  That Arab terror, a terror that seriously wounded my neighbor of Shvut Rachel, continues is what should be highlighted.

Bad journalism.

Bad for journalism and, of course, bad for Israel.