Comment of the Day
November 18, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Yesterday's post about the use of anonymous sources in the Times profile of Israeli general Herzl Halevi drew the following comment from Belladonna Rogers:
there's another, even more serious error in the Times article on General Halevi, and it is contained in this sentence, a sentence that quotes no one; it merely expresses a so-called "fact" that the reporter wishes to convey as if it were a fact, which it is not. Here's the sentence:
"Hezbollah is seen as Iran's proxy and the Palestinians' enforcer, the
boots on the ground in global terrorist attacks and the likeliest to
retaliate for Israeli aggression anywhere in the world."
"Israeli aggression"? When any other country defends itself from attacks, the word to describe what it does is "defense."
When Israel defends itself from attacks, The New York Times news columns call it "Israeli aggression."
Editorializing in the news columns, and fabricating a narrative, are, in my opinion, even more egregious errors of journalistic ethics than citing anonymous sources who happen to agree with the newspaper's reporters, columnists, editorial board -- and owner.
Related Topics: Middle East
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free smartertimes.com mailing list