Washington Post finds another way to bash Israel, this time bashing a minuscule sect

It was very interesting to see The Washington Post article, which made the front page, about ultra-religious Jews who abandon their religious community ("For former ultra-Orthodox in Israel, a race to catch up" 12/05/19).  It was well written, though, honestly, it isn't apparent why it warranted front-page positioning.  The only reason that can be posited is that it made Jews look bad.

Will The Washington Post provide similar front-page coverage of the other much larger non-Jewish religious groups in the Holy Land who abandon the ultra-religious wings of their faiths?  I doubt it, considering the Post's track record.  Further, Jews make up one tenth of one percent of the world's population, and that number is shrinking.  Doesn't the article deserve this context?

The article stated that the ultra-religious Jewish sect that Ruth Borovski left "reject Zionism and the Israeli government."  More specifically, isn't the group that Ruth was part of against the very existence of the State of Israel?  Why obfuscate that?  Perhaps because it would expose that the group is a radical minority even among the ultra-orthodox, diminishing the significance of the story?

Aside from articles on other religions where members have left, wouldn't it be refreshing to have articles on people who found religion and how their lives were affected?  Or would that be contrary to the dominant theme at the Post that leaving religion is good and finding religion is bad?

Why does the Post need to have an agenda and not just report stories devoid of bias and of human interest?  Now, that would be refreshing!

It was very interesting to see The Washington Post article, which made the front page, about ultra-religious Jews who abandon their religious community ("For former ultra-Orthodox in Israel, a race to catch up" 12/05/19).  It was well written, though, honestly, it isn't apparent why it warranted front-page positioning.  The only reason that can be posited is that it made Jews look bad.

Will The Washington Post provide similar front-page coverage of the other much larger non-Jewish religious groups in the Holy Land who abandon the ultra-religious wings of their faiths?  I doubt it, considering the Post's track record.  Further, Jews make up one tenth of one percent of the world's population, and that number is shrinking.  Doesn't the article deserve this context?

The article stated that the ultra-religious Jewish sect that Ruth Borovski left "reject Zionism and the Israeli government."  More specifically, isn't the group that Ruth was part of against the very existence of the State of Israel?  Why obfuscate that?  Perhaps because it would expose that the group is a radical minority even among the ultra-orthodox, diminishing the significance of the story?

Aside from articles on other religions where members have left, wouldn't it be refreshing to have articles on people who found religion and how their lives were affected?  Or would that be contrary to the dominant theme at the Post that leaving religion is good and finding religion is bad?

Why does the Post need to have an agenda and not just report stories devoid of bias and of human interest?  Now, that would be refreshing!