Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?

Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.

At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.

In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:

"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.

From https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/embedded-journalism-and-msm-war-propaganda,7045

And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples' happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.

So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.