The issue of the security fence went to the Israeli Supreme Court today.

CNN's story was titled: Israel barrier 'illegal,' court hears. (Note: that title appears on the CNN homepage which links to the story, but not on the story itself.)

The question here is why does CNN choose a title that reflects only the arguments of one side in this case. An observer, reading the headline quickly, might mistakenly believe that a court ruled the fence to be illegal. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly newsworthy about the headline's angle, either: the fence's opponents were expected to argue that the fence is illegal, otherwise they would not have brought it before a court. (In most cases for injunctive relief, one side argues that the action in question is illegal.) And the court heard both arguments, so that the arguments against the fence were no more newsworthy than the arguments in favor.

The Israeli papers also presented one side's arguments in their headlines.

The Jerusalem Post's story was titled: State: High Court unable to rule on security fence route.

Ha'aretz English Edition's story was titled: State tells High Court fence route is being `reassessed'.

Perhaps, though, this is somewhat more excusable. First, it is fairly clear to even a casual observer that the headline reflects the views of the state. Second, the state (arguing in favor of the fence) had a choice of defenses, and each of these headlines highlights a particular strategy chosen by the state. These observations apply a bit more to the Ha'aretz story. That the route is being 'reassessed' certainly has news value independent of the lawsuit.