Why did Reuters’ AlertNet turn down a request from NGO-Monitor to contribute content like other non-governmental organizations? The Reuters Foundation founded AlertNet “to keep relief professionals and the wider public up-to-date on humanitarian crises around the globe” and “to place Reuters’ core skills of speed, accuracy and freedom from bias at the service of the humanitarian community.” The foundation’s Megan Rowling responded to NGO-Monitor:
The political arena in which you/we operate is very sensitive – and as you are mainly interested in highlighting anti-Israel bias, we were concerned that if we publish your material, we risk offering a rather one-sided view. We really do have to tread very carefully in this area, so I hope you can understand this reservation.
To which NGO-Monitor replied:
You write that, in revealing the biases and lack of credibility of some NGO reports, NGO Monitor “offers a valuable service”. Yet, in order to avoid appearing biased and one-sided, you refuse to publish the very NGO Monitor reports which highlight the biased and one-sided coverage – and instead continue to carry the biased and one-sided reports themselves. This is, to say the least, illogical, and perpetuates the abuse of the rhetoric of human rights and humanitarian norms.
If avoiding bias in reports on central humanitarian issues is at all a concern, as well it should be, Reuters AlertNet should actively seek to carry evidenced-based reports on this subject. Certainly, Reuters AlertNet should not actively avoid publishing NGO Monitor’s reports detailing bias. The most basic journalistic ethics demand this.
Click here to see how correspondence between Reuters and NGO-Monitor unfolded.
