Humanizing The Inhumane?

I recently came across the following headline:

"Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was a high-stakes gambler who 'kept to himself' before massacre"

The article, originally published by the Washington Post, focuses on Paddock's personal life: his interest in high-stakes gambling, his frequent attendance of concerts, the two planes and four homes that he owned, his fishing license, his relationship with his girlfriend, his family life, his previous occupations, and so on. The article states that he led a "quiet life."

The reporters refer to Paddock by his own name, "he," and "gunman," never once calling him what he is: a terrorist. His crime is only mentioned three times in the article.

Many readers argue that this language and subject matter portrays Paddock in a sympathetic light, thus perpetuating white privilege by humanizing a mass murderer. All too often are white terrorists referred to as simply mentally ill or misunderstood, while people of color who commit similar crimes are framed in a manner that places the blame on their entire ethnic group or religion.

Was it ethical for the Post to publish an article that portrayed Paddock as a sympathetic individual? If the authors were to rewrite the piece, what edits would you suggest they make?