On Wednesday, veteran Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by Israeli gunfire while covering Israeli raids in the city of Jenin. As one of Al Jazeera’s field correspondents, Abu Akleh rose to prominence for her coverage of the second Palestinian Intifada. As her obituary in the New York Times notes, Akleh “became a household name among Palestinians and Arabs across the Middle East, inspiring many to follow in her path.”

While the military murder of a journalist usually sparks outcry among media outlets, the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh has not. In fact, just a cursory look at how it has been covered would make it seem as though Abu Akleh died under mysterious circumstances during ill-defined “clashes” between Palestinian and Israeli forces, instead of being brutally murdered by the latter.

Other journalists on the scene, including Al Jazeera producer Ali al-Samoudi — who was also shot by Israeli forces — emphasized to Al Jazeera that there was no presence of Palestinian fighters, saying, “We were going to film the Israeli army operation and suddenly they shot us without asking us to leave or stop filming.” Another journalist present, Shatha Hanaysha, confirmed to Al Jazeera that all journalists present were wearing press vests and helmets saying, “The [Israeli] occupation army did not stop firing even after [Abu Akleh] collapsed. I couldn’t even extend my arm to pull her because of the shots being fired. The army was adamant on shooting to kill.”

And yet, the now-changed New York Times headline for Akleh’s aforementioned obituary simply said she “died” while also obfuscating the contents of an Al Jazeera statement in a now-deleted tweet. (“Died” has now been changed to “killed” in the headline.)