|
The
Conversation takes no editorial line. Nor does it have
agendas, other than seeking to improve widespread access to
high-quality, informed content that can help readers and
listeners understand the world and the events and discoveries
shaping it. That sees us draw on the strength of knowledge
within the global academic community. It also sometimes
presents difficult choices and discussions when it comes to
contentious issues. The conflict in Israel and the Palestinian
territories is an example of such an issue.
Following
the Hamas attacks of October 7, and the Israeli military
response, we have sought to publish
a range of explanations, perspectives and analyses by
respected political scientists and historians.
Our
aim is always to inform, be illustrative of different
viewpoints, and to ensure that what we publish is grounded in
research-based knowledge. The very nature of these articles,
authored by scholars, means they do not necessarily carry
multiple viewpoints, or “balance” as some reported news
articles do. However, our editors use their judgement to
strive to ensure that content is accurate and fair.
This
does sometimes, inevitably, lead to content that readers may
disagree with. It also can mean we are rejecting proposed
articles, often by highly qualified authors, as our edition
leads feel we may have an angle covered at a particular time.
They also seek to source content from authors of varying
backgrounds and knowledge bases. But it does not mean that we,
The Conversation, have an institutional line or view that we
seek to promote. We do not.
Edits
can also be made to ensure content is succinct and accessible.
Again, this does not reflect an editor’s viewpoint, but merely
a need to tell the story to a broad potential audience. We are
aware that issues such as these require close, measured
editorial consideration. Our decisions are reflected upon. And
we very much appreciate your views of the work we collectively
produce. | 
