Democracy needs trustworthy media
How refreshing to read Kurt Shillinger's Nov. 19 op-ed, "It's 2033, and civility thrives in Washington," suggesting political and governmental steps toward achieving that goal. It was appropriate for him to close by reminding us that nothing will be possible without the people's resolve. But there was one gaping hole in his road to progress – the role of media.
Mass communications are increasingly complex and divisive. During the presidential campaign, independent efforts were needed to check the "facts" spread in speeches and ads. We witnessed that even facts can be presented inaccurately. Slanted news coverage and soft interviews leave a reader, listener, or viewer asking, "But what's the real story?"
Gone are the days, it seems, when journalism was a calling and mission with a critical role in society. It now seems more preoccupied with producing revenue. Most of the world's major media are owned by a handful of corporations. They are beholden to shareholder profits, not a duty to inform the public or rein in government.
Mr. Shillinger did include "a more discerning consumption of information" among people's responsibilities if they are to "take back the government." It would certainly help if the media itself better shouldered its responsibilities to generate dependable information in the first place.
Israel's right to defend itself
In Jonathan Adelman's Dec. 10 op-ed, "Hamas is no winner in Gaza cease-fire," he correctly writes of the 1,500 rockets that Hamas fired into Israel during the recent eight-day conflict and the effect this had on Israel. However, I do not think it is made clear enough why Israel retaliated.
Israel has been subjected to thousands of rockets, fired from Hamas, over the course of the past few years. If Canada were shooting this many rockets into the United States, would there be dispute as to whether or not the US had the right to defend itself? Israel only decided to fight back after attacks became unbearable.