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.