PressEthic

This is an interesting case of a conflict between two parties seeking first amendment protection, while they accuse each other of wrong-doing.

The Islamic Society of Boston is currently emroiled in a coflict with the the Boston Herald, Channel 25 and some activists, which could possibly have national or even international implications.

The plaintiffs — the ISB, its board-of-directors chair Yousef Abou-Allaban and board-of-trustees chair Osama Kandil — contend that the defendants conspired to deny them the right to practice their religion by falsely linking them to terror and undermining their efforts to construct a $22 million mosque and cultural center in Roxbury.

And the other side has an equally compelling argument.

The defendants — including the two media outlets, terrorism analyst Steven Emerson, and officials of The David Project and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance — argue that the plaintiffs have engaged in an effort to quash free speech by using intimidation to prevent people from questioning whether the ISB is linked to Islamic terrorism.

Both parties are playing the argument and counter-argument game to a point, where an impartial reader tends to get completely confused about the issue. In a conflict where all the key players seem to have an agenda, is it the media’s responsibility to take the arguments apart and reach a conclusion ?

In a case like this I would argue that ‘objectivity’ is the only solution. Place both arguments out there and let the readers reach a conclusion. Even though people are demanding more dynamic and editorialized news, there are times when the good old inverted pyramid style is the only way to go ( or maybe I am just hopelessly old-fashioned).