More and more lately, I have been noticing the shoddy writing that passes for journalism in the papers – and I’m not talking grammar or spelling.

I know from my own experience over the years, where I have been to numerous events and demonstrations in Israel where what was reported in the paper had no connection to any reality beyond the political agenda of the reporter or their paper. But that’s political and to be expected in Israeli media sources.

But I myself have emailed some papers regarding local events that I witnessed, only to find the events rewritten and unrecognizable.

Need we mention that ridiculous article on the Kitot Konninut that appeared in the JP a little while back?

I’ve certainly noticed that in the "interest of balance", more than one side is presented (which should be when there is more than one), but far too often, the “other side of the story” is blown out of proportion, when it is hardly credible or factual, but is presented as such to provide “balance”.

I’m sure that once there was a time when if you quoted someone you would actually confirm the quote with the author or the source. I’ve heard from a number of people lately who were quoted in the papers, about remarks they supposedly (but never) said, and that no reporter ever even contacted them about the quote in the first place.

If newspapers want to write blogs that’s one thing, but they aren't.

Balance doesn’t necessarily mean equal space to a different view just because its opposing, it is about proportionality too, and about not creating or blowing a non-story out of proportion to its true worth.