RedEye's Israel problem

RedEye,the free Tribune Co. tabloid publication aimed at people who ride the bus and/or train to work in Chicago, frequently prints international news in a couple of column inches. An item on Israel is limited to this coverage with what is often a very misleading headline. On Feb. 10, the headline was "More airstrikes in Gaza." No context as to what prompted the airstrikes. The first sentence said, "Israeli aircraft struck two targets in the Gaza Strip and a militant died in a clash with troops on the border Monday." Why did the "militant" (terrorist?) die? Maybe because he attacked the troops or was seen launching a rocket toward Israel? Or was it ruthless Israeli aggression? Yeah, right. We just don't know, and the casual news observer is left to draw his own conclusions. So first I criticized RedEye in my Twitter feed, saying, "Your 'More airstrikes in Gaza' item 02-10 gives no context for reason--Hamas rocket attacks. Your editor keeps doing this." This reached my 68 followers (wow! =)), plus a RedEye editor. The editor replied that context is difficult with only 30 words. I replied that context is necessary as far as Israel is concerned, and if RedEye doesn't have enough room, then the story should be dropped. In my Twitter comments, I have a 140-character limit. So I emailed ritaredeye@tribune.com and wrote:

Dear Editor:

Twice I have complained to your Twitter writer about items in the RedEye news roundup about Israel. The latest was yesterday's very biased headline: "More airstrikes in Gaza." Obviously there's much more to the story, but the Twitter writer explained, "Context isn't always easy in 30 words." Actually it was 46 words including the headline. Here's my version: same word limit, different angle:

Hamas terrorists attack Israeli troops in Gaza

A Hamas terrorist attacked Israeli troops in Gaza Monday, forcing them to respond, fatally wounding him. Due to Hamas terrorists in Gaza shelling Israeli civilian areas, Israeli aircraft launched a defensive response, striking two Gaza targets.

I'm sure you noticed the difference. Your story, perhaps pulled from anti-Israel media such as Reuters, euphemistically refers to "The violence" when the reality is "Hamas terrorist violence" and "Israeli defensive response." My story's perspective is different and yet retains the basic facts, in 43 words. Please be more careful when adding Mideast stories as anti-Israel bias frequently comes into play.

* * *

I think I made my point, and I hope RedEye pays attention.