Guardian tries to read minds, gets award for bad journalism

What a difference a word makes! As reported in Andrew Sullivan, the Guardian had a moment of insane irresponsibility and published the following sentence:
"The killing of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana, who was shot dead by US troops in August for filming outside an Iraqi prison, provoked outrage."
As one would expect, this statement has also provoked outrage, mainly amongst the American military. Consider if the word "for" had been changed to "while". Does this highlight why I say the sentence is irresponsible? How can a journalist know what a soldier shoots someone "for"? A blog called "Iraq Now", authored by a soldier, makes this reasonable point:
"Here's a news flash for you guys: Mazen Dana was killed when he went downrange during a firefight, turned around, hefted something on his shoulder, and foolishly aimed it in the direction of a tank's gunnery optics."
Well, yeah, exactly. I was halfway trained in journalism in the early 1970s (before I changed my major for the third time out of seven.) None of the ethics and standards that I learned at that time are in evidence today, even in the world's highest rated publications. It makes me ill sometimes.