There are various degree's of what is reasonable and what is not when thinking of the degree of bias a writer may have on a given subject. The more heated the subject matter, the less amount of slack should be given. The subject matter at hand is highly heated and little slack should be given, especially when the writer is sponsored by one side. If she was jewish and not sponsored, a greater amount of slack could be given.

I find the winnowing of influences tedious and unsatisfactory. Instead, I prefer to accept the words as written, insofar as possible.

What does Israel say of Israel?
What does Israel say of Hamas?
What does Israel say of Palestine?
What does Hamas say of Hamas?
What does Hamas say of Israel?
What does Hamas say of Palestine?

By reading the words directly we come to understand what they are saying, the symbols they use, and what these things say as to potential outcomes.

Bot

If the source is sponsored by one of the sides, a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. It's not tedious at all, it's common sense: A report on the health of forests paid for by a logging company. A report on second hand smoke paid for by the tobbaco companies. A report the quality of american cars paid for by GM. A report on the Israeli conflict by a Jew paid for by a consortium of Jews.

Skepticism. What does that mean, exactly?

It's kinda like olympic judging. You throw out the high and low score.:P

Or like pornography.

Gotta like todays news- Israel shoots and kills two Palestinians with an airplane, and then snipes and kills two teenagers for throwing rocks. Screw that eye for an eye stuff, we like a bullet in the head for throwing a rock better. That'll teach'em.:D

Yep, that's pretty bad.

ALMOST as bad as getting killed just because you went to the coffee shop, or a wedding, or the disco, or a hotel, or rode the bus....or walked down the sidewalk.... Not quite as bad, but almost.

:rolleyes:

Mike