Show balance when reporting brash charges

Editor,

Regarding the Daily Lobo’s Sept. 3 coverage of activists protesting the administration’s proposed military intervention into Syria, I had a few concerns with this piece that I feel must be voiced.

First of all, I do not think it is the proper place for a news article to be the sounding board for the opinions of a few people.

Sayrah Namaste, a member of (un)Occupy Albuquerque, Joel Gallegos, a member of ANSWER, and Danya Mustafa, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine are the only local persons quoted, and they all have an anti-intervention agenda.

It strikes me as odd that a newspaper dedicated to spreading knowledge would, in effect, take a position on a story it is covering by not providing balanced coverage.

Secondly, Namaste cites international law as a barrier to intervention, saying “this attack would not be following international law.” Does she know something that the American government, the international community, and the largest newspapers in the world do not know? I have heard much of opposition to a theoretical strike, but virtually no one has cited illegality as a cause.

I’m also disappointed that the Daily Lobo did not fact check this allegation, but instead let it slide undisputed — which is tantamount to agreeing.

Finally, Gallegos says “the United States government likes to claim that they don’t have money for housing, for food programs, for health care … but they have money for war?” This is an egregious generalization that is almost satirical in its ignorance. Fallacious straw men arguments have no place in a reputable newspaper.

I hope that UNM students take the time to get informed and think critically about the issue at hand, and then weigh the pros and cons of an intervention, before making blanket declarations or trying to persuade others. Thank you very much!

Jeremy Keys
Daily Lobo reader