Let us have just the unembellished news


I read this news report which was composed by the JPost.com staff

''Controversial anti-Islam ads set for Washington DC''
''Washington Post'' reports inflammatory ad equating jihad with savagery to be posted in 4 DC subways beginning Monday.
A federal judge has ordered the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Agency to begin displaying anti-jihad advertisements beginning on Monday, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
US District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued the one-page ruling on Friday, granting an injunction to the American Freedom Defense Initiative that sought to force the Metropolitan Area Transit Agency to display the posters in four stations, the Washington Post reported, even though the agency said the ads might incite violence. The posters were scheduled to be displayed for a month starting on September 24, but were delayed until the court decision.
…Rabbi’s for Human Rights in North America plans to take out subway ads urging riders to “choose love” in what the group’s director calls a response to the anti-jihad advertisements, The Jewish Week reported on Friday.  The Rabbis for Human Rights’ ads say, “In the choice between love and hate, choose love. Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors.”
The anti-jihad ads initially appeared in San Francisco, and have drawn outrage from civil and human rights movements as well as legal advocates and activists. People have signed a petition demanding to take the ads down.

Now, I have two problems with the report.
The first is that while Pamela Geller, the originator of the ads, is quoted further down in the report, were there not other groups that supported her campaign?  Was it just her or are there additional organization supporting her?  If so, at least they should have been noted so as to provide perspective on the controversy.  Ms. Geller''s anti-jihad rallies have garnered wide-spread support from Christian groups, Hindus and even atheists.
Secondly, I do not think the JPost need have adopted all the pejorative language the Reuters seems to have employed (the word ‘controversial’ is not in the Washington Post report I read nor in an AP report).  Are the ads truly inflammatory or do only certain people think them so?  After all, a judge allowed the ads to be displayed so perhaps they weren’t “inflammatory”.  Indeed, it seems she termed the ads “hate speech” and  so, it would have been justified to accurately report her words, but without adding commentary.
Thirdly, if the editor of this report thought that such extraneous terms could be used, why not properly identify Rabbis for Human Rights, a group that justifiably could be termed a left-wing/liberal/progressive organization supportive of Arab claims.