A brutal war rages in Israel, though by many accounts outside of a partial Western press, appears to be a brutal and merciless one-sided affair.
Thus, after perusing the dissonant headline "Israel issues brief truce" (Aug. 4), I was taken aback, pondering just how one-sided this battle and its pursuant reportage may be.
After all, truces are not unilateral, "issued" as if by decree from a single party, though a cease-fire may be. By definition, a truce is an agreement between two factions. If during a purported war, one party has the ability to "call all the shots," it implies a greater degree of control than is logical. Further, if in fact the course of the war can be practically dictated by one side, might not there be also be a scribe dutifully relaying the dictation?
Perhaps it was a careless mistake, but employing such a misnomer may allude to more than just improper usage or even a lack professional objectivity, as it may portend an unspoken desire to steer and control public perception.
In good faith, we rely on The Baltimore Sun to be our window on the world, eponymously shining the light on even the most complex matters with impartiality and fairness. But if our window on the world is tainted and tacitly hampers our view, how then are we to see and think clearly?
Tracy Stott, Baltimore
To respond to this letter, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.