I think you are premature in your judgment. Until all facts are known as to what actually occurred, it is irresponsible, and in this case, quite purposeful, to use such emotionally charged terms to describe the event. I do not believe it is appropriate in a military context to use such terms without proof of criminal intent. This is even more true in the context of the current ROE in place.
Oh come on, wake up. It is not just the overtly socialist press that report in such an irresponsible manner. The collective media throughout the civilised world has changed its reporting style to sensationalism and gossip. The truth now comes a poor second!
I took exception to the "threat of humanitarian disaster". Having seen (images of) a three year old stood ankle deep in human turd, i'd be tempted to conclude that there is no threat of humanitarian disaster. That's already been happening for well over sixty years.
Holding NATO responsible for current humanitarian stuff is like blaming the fire service for damaging a written off car when they cut the driver out of it.