So you're upset because a reporter is checking their information rather than rushing to premature conclusions? The video was taken down by Twitch and could not be immediately verified. Now that it has, the article reads:

Leading up the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he "will no longer be complicit in genocide." Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling "Free Palestine!"

Waiting a few hours for reliable information is exactly what a good news agency should do. People demanding news that rushes to conclusions regardless of their information is what leads to misinformation.

An earlier version of the sentence reads (bold mine):

As of Sunday afternoon, NPR was not able to independently verify the man's identity or motives.

Although there were indications that he was a US servicemember (he was wearing a uniform) and likely his identity - as you mentioned, he recorded the video - they were not verified at that time.

Once his Identity was verified, the reporter removed that part of the line. Once his motives were verified, she removed that part of the line as well. This is just how news reporting works.

I suspect "independently" is the critical word here. I guess they aren't willing to take the guy's word for it when he says it's because of Gaza. Probably a sound policy in general when suicide/mental health is in play. The followup investigation will have to determine if his competence was intact, at which point the motive will be "independently verified".

One day later and the current version of the article does not use the word "Genocide" when quoting Aaron's motive, replacing it with "war".

NPR is very intentionally lying about the words used by Aaron Bushnell.

Only far down the article where they know most people will not read, do they actually quote what Aaron really said.

For purposes of propaganda, is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting? I don't think so. If npr had an agenda when it came to this story, why not....just not publish it?

Instead they posted facts that they were able to verify, then updated the article as they were able to confirm more facts. Seems reasonable to me. Do you think not publishing assumptions as to why a man self immolated in protest in front of an Israeli embassy really convinced anyone this airman wasn't protesting isreali actions?

Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?

That's NPR, always speaking truth to power. 🙄 https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2009/06/21/105657917/harsh-interrogation-techniques-or-torture

I feel like it's just bad journalism than boring dystopia tbh.