Agema, this article leads with the headline as if Rittenhouse threw up and was distraught because he shot white people but in the actual article him throwing up is seperate from him talking about shooting white kids. This is another case of the media displaying facts in a way to make them appear to be something they aren't because they know most of the people they cater to will just read the headline, see that it affirms their beliefs, and then move on.
Frankly, I disagree. The headline does not say "because". The "as" clearly indicates contemporaneity, which is accurate. He was distraught throughout the interview.
Let's imagine the headline had not drawn attention to that quotation, and Kyle Rittenhouse did turn out to be racist and is upset more from killing white people. In that case, the headline would have huidden a potential indicator to his real attitude, be "less accurate". From the perspective of journalistic accuracy, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it?
But it's an unknown what he meant by that. We're primed these days to notice certain mentions of race, because sometimes they do mean something. The officer interviewing quite possibly knows this and that's why he/she made sure it was recorded. The journalist possibly knows it, and likewise that it's potentially significant. Lots of us spotted it, and know what it potentially means. And the fact is,
he said it. The important thing we all have to remember is that whilst it does sometimes mean something untoward, sometimes it doesn't. Someone's just chucked a descriptor in there, and race is a pretty significant thing people might think about even without any adverse feelings towards that race. If we rush to judge, that's our problem.
I don't think it's the journalist's job to make that decision for us. I don't think the journalist should decide "Hmm, people might take this a certain way and they might be wrong, so I'm going to hide what he said". The journalist is there to report the facts as faithfully as they can, and let us decide. It's not fair to criticise the journalist because we don't like the outcome of our own interpretation.