Good journalists will never make their own opinion on the matter known outside the comment/opinion/analysis pages.

Not: Man eats a delicious red apple

Not: Man eats a red apple and says it's delicious.

But: Man says he ate a red apple and claims it is delicious.

Or in some cases: Footage appears to show many saying he ate a red apple and claiming it was delicious.

If the journalist didn't see it with their own eyes, they won't state that it's a fact.

It's annoying how intertwined opinion and journalism have become, but it isn't a journalist's job to do anything more than report on what they saw, read or heard.

Unfortunately journalism has been in decline for so long now, that many people don't know the difference between good and poor journalism. So when a good journalist simply reports on what someone said, they wrongly think the journalist is agreeing with them, instead of simply reporting on what they heard the person say.

Good journalism isn't someone shouting about how angry something makes them, even if you agree with them. Good journalism is the equivalent of a court stenographer or someone who subtitles movies for the deaf.

Right. It's all about media literacy. Once you start picking up on loaded language like "Radical Islamic terror organisation Hamas" it starts becoming pretty evident what the biases are. That's not to say the news they are reporting is false, just that it is going to take some extra work on your part to filter out all of the bullshit. Like you mentioned, the Common name of the government of Gaza is "Hamas" calling it anything else is an attempt to appeal to emotion to prime you to think about it a certain way. Like calling the Israeli government "zionists" it's ment to sway to to something, not give you news.

radical islamic terror organisation Hamas

This is an accurate, unbiased description of Hamas. They are exactly that, the same way ISIL/ISIS is.