Below is an example of adversarial coverage of an incident covered by the following Reuters article:
Note that I have not actually interviewed any experts nor am I a journalist. This is merely meant to serve as an illustration of the adversarial model of news coverage.
Lebanese army fires on Israeli warplanes flying over Lebanon
BEIRUT - Lebanon’s army said on Tuesday it fired anti-aircraft rounds at four Israeli warplanes which flew at low altitude over south Lebanon.
Numerous Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace have been reported since a ceasefire was established following a 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
Defenders of the Lebanese army’s actions argue that Lebanon is safeguarding its sovereignty against unjustified, arrogant Israeli incursions that are in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, that disrupt daily life, and that engender fear among the Lebanese population – a fear which is particularly pronounced given the destruction wrought by the Israeli warplanes in the 2006 conflict. They also point out that Hezbollah is using the continuous Israeli flights to justify acquisition of its own air-defense weapons.
Israel has refused to officially confirm the flights are occurring. However, defenders of Israel’s actions privately affirm the flights are occurring. But they argue that these flights are needed to monitor the rearmament of Hezbollah in south Lebanon - a rearmament that is also a violation of Resolution 1701 and which Israelis contend Lebanon is not doing enough to prevent. On the Israeli view, the firing of anti-aircraft guns is an unjustified interference with Israel’s right to self-defense.
Experts agree that Hezbollah is indeed rearming in south Lebanon and that the Israeli flights are useful for gathering intelligence on Hezbollah’s movements. However, many experts doubt whether the frequency and altitude of the Israeli incursions are consistent with purely intelligence-gathering objectives.