Email I received just now about a story at the top of today's front page in the print edition - "Israeli strike on Gaza heightens fear of war:"
I take strong offense to your headline in this morning's newspaper. Why didn't the headline read 'Continued Rocket Barrage By Hamas on Israel Heightens Fear of War' ? Your headline blames the victim for defending herself. ... Your headline conceals the truth of the matter and creates the impression/belief that Israel is the aggressor when the reality is the exact opposite. Furthermore, Hamas rockets have been bombarding Israel daily in the least few months with NO outrage in your paper and NO page one headlines. Why is this? Why is it only news when Israel decides to defend herself?
This reflects a criticism I hear fairly often -- that Palestinian attacks, regardless of their size or intensity -- don't receive the attention that Israel's do. Compounding this is the fact that The Star, like almost all regional papers these days, doesn't cover international events in print as closely as in years past, instead focusing more on the Kansas City area. One side effect of this otherwise logical approach (to my mind, anyway) is that it tends to amplify the perceived importance of whatever international stories do make it to the print edition. I understand the impression this reader takes from the headline.
Thanks for your 'understanding'
But it changes nothing, nor will it change when the next occasion arises. What is your function there? Is it just to be someone people can yell at while you shield management?
If management wanted a
If management wanted a "shield," they wouldn't employ someone whose primary job was to air readers' concerns. This is a subjective thing with decades of inflamed passions on both sides. I don't think anyone could ever report on anything even remotely tangential to this issue in a way that will make everyone happy.
And by the way, this thread is not turning into a debate on the Israel/Palestine situation -- period.
Understood, but nevertheless
Understood, but nevertheless I think coverage of the whole Israel-Palestien kerfuffle could be handled better. Even the referenced headline could so easily have contained the word 'retaliatory' or suchlike. As it is, it rather seems to imply Israel just went and launched a strike for the sheer hell of it.
No one's asking for prostelyzing or cheerleading, just that actions of one side are noted with equal coverage as those of the other, and that stories are presented in context of the larger picture as a whole. In a 140-character world where many folks never read past the headline, such details are more important than ever.
I think we (on both sides) would be grateful to know the Star is taking steps to present the coverage in a more objective manner (inasmuch as this is possible, given the sheer subjectivity of the situation, granted), and what improvements we may expect to see in future.
Thank you.
Fair enough -- and I do
Fair enough -- and I do deliver each and every comment I get from readers about those things. I agree 100 percent that this is one of those topics where journalists need to pay close attention to their critics, because even something so polarizing DOES generate productive criticism all the time.