Haaretz is considered to be Israel's most important daily newspaper but in terms of professionalism it's a mixed bag. Even more so the English web version. Today there was an article about an appeal by British professors to Leonard Cohen to cancel his planned Israel gig. The article relies for content almost entirely on the professors' letter. The letter itself isn't a great work of literature. By taking parts of it out of context, the article makes it appear worse than it is. The original letter was about 500 words. The Haaretz article is around half of that. If the online newspaper is somehow short of space, it could at least link back to the original. I suggested that in a talkback, and provided the link, but they didn't publish it. That's how I discovered that although the newspaper permits all kinds of racist and bigotted talk-backs, a simple matter like the original link to a letter that has been badly quoted, is out of the question.
Doesn't that just typify "old journalism"? Present a mangled version of an opposing viewpoint, and deny your readers access to the original. Wouldn't want them to form an independent opinion.