Edmund - // ITV have now amended the news item to remove "effective firing squad" and say instead "a group of armed officers". //
Are you saying that the use of the words 'effective firing squad' are what you found inflammatory and irresponsible?
Because you didn;t mention that in your OP.
You used the term, and linked it to the report, which is neither inflammatory of irresponsible, as I and everyone else who referred to it has pointed out.
Had you mentioned that the thrust of your point was the use of language by the news time, my, and I suspect everyone else's response referring to the report, would have been completely different.
If you make it clear what you are talking about, you will get responses that refer to the point you are making.
If you don't mention the source of your observation - but imply that it the report itself, then you lead everyone down the wrong path.
On the basis that you are asking if the use of the words 'effective firing squad' by a news outlet - although i haven't seen it, so I am guessing this is what you mean - then I would disagree once again, but for an entirely different reason.
The only people who may feel that the phrase was 'inflammatory and irresponsible' would be those who sympathise with the terrorist and the death he suffered at the hands of the security forces.
I don;t think anyone would suggest that their opinion matters for a nanosecond - far less that news outlet language should be tailored around their perceived sensibilities.