Is "The Jerusalem Post" Ignoring History?

They apparently are. Then again, they may just be cutting it short. Still, isn't cutting off a part of history essentially ignoring it (at best)? (At worst, cutting off any part of history is either denial of it or even unspoken support of what happened at a point in it.).
Jeremy Sharon, the Post reporter who wrote the history in question, reported:

One of the most striking aspects of the 33rd Government of Israel was the absence of the two haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, from the coalition.
Since 1981, at least one of the haredi parties has been a coalition partner in 11 out of the 15 governments since that time.

Is he kidding?  Even though Shas was absent (or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had been deceased since October 7th of last year, which Sharon himself reported) and United Torah Judaism was absent, that doesn't make "the absence of the two haredi parties" (or any other Haredi party) a fact! On the contrary, the Haredim have always been in the government since then-PM David ben Gurion gave Agudat Yisra'el power.
All one constituency needs is an umbrella or big-tent party to be in its government, and that constituency is there for as long as the party is there. In this case, Agudat Yisra'el has been in HaMemshalah Yisra'el since before the "Declaration of Establishment" was written.
Therefore, for Jeremy Sharon and The Jerusalem Post to claim that the Haredim were missing from even one of the Israeli regimes, let alone four, is dishonest and (at best) sloppy or even (at worst) yellow journalism.
How would it be yellow journalism? For starters, yellow journalism itself

was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.

Therefore, to claim a Haredi absence is yellow journalism in its own sense. To state that "the two haredi parties" were absent is sensationalistically acting like the Haredim were entirely absent, after all.
Besides, Jeremy Sharon also noted that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had appointed an heir∗:

Roi Lachmanovitz, a former Shas spokesman, said that the designation of Moshe as inheritor, in particular of the rabbi’s library and publishing rights, gives him increased influence within the Shas party and the Yosef family.
Lachmanovitz noted that it had been Yosef’s other sons who had been chosen for public roles. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef was nominated by Yosef himself, before he died, to be the new Sephardi chief rabbi, and Rabbi David Yosef was appointed to the Shas Council of Torah Sages after the rabbi passed away.
“Moshe and his wife are returning to the center stage, because whoever has control of the books and library... can direct the [haredi] public, can tell the public what the rabbi meant. They will have increased status because of this,” he said.

In conclusion, Jeremy Sharon cut off 34-67 years of history (34 years counting from 1947-1981; 67 counting from June 1947-2014) and submitted a yellow-journalism article for The Jerusalem Post to print and publish (and apparently fell for his own revisionism).

Update (10:54:45 PM EST on December 8, 2014): Now here comes the "Told ya."