A commentary by Peter Greste argues that journalism’s first duty in covering Palestine is accuracy, not the appearance of balance. The piece challenges a familiar newsroom habit: giving equal space to opposing claims even when the available evidence does not support treating them as equally credible.
Using a well-known journalistic principle, the article says reporters should test competing accounts against observable facts instead of simply repeating both sides. In that view, the press is not doing its job if it presents conflicting narratives without making a serious effort to determine what is true.
The argument is especially pointed in coverage of Palestine, where the language of neutrality can, the piece suggests, blur reality rather than clarify it. Greste’s position is that journalism should resist false equivalence and place verification, context and factual accuracy ahead of a formulaic idea of fairness.
At its core, the article is a broader critique of how “balance” is often misunderstood in news reporting. Rather than measuring fairness by equal treatment of every claim, it says the standard should be whether coverage helps the public understand events as truthfully and accurately as possible.
