What info is relevant?

An important point submitted by an HR reader:

In discussions with friends and family about biased reporting in the Mideast, I have
been taken to task when criticizing news sources for reporting a “fact” while failing to
mention relevant information which contradicts it. One friend said that it was unfair to
take a reporter to task for what he DIDN’T say; another said that news sources were not
responsible for running entire histories in single articles.

Below is a quote from today’s Fox News which illustrates my point. I have heard
mention of terrorist Yasser Arafat being the “elected” leader of the “Palestinians” many times on NPR. However, in today’s article on the Mideast on Fox News, a slight addition to the sentence changes the entire perspective:

“Palestinians … note that Arafat is their elected president — although the term he won in a 1996 vote has formally expired.”

This is without even going into the subject as to whether the “Palestinians” had the
actually freedom to make their votes count in a free election.

We raised a similar point in our communique “The Media’s Mideast Relativism.” — journalists use the “he said/she said” approach in their attempt to present a “balanced picture,” but when one side issues patently false information, isn’t the cause of “objective reporting” compromised, unless statements are qualified by the reporter?

Authors
Top
More in (1 of 604 articles)
IDNS-story-of-newspapers-770x400


Today's Top Stories 1. The UN says it brokered a deal between Israel and the PA to rebuild Gaza. The ...