no one should be allowed to cover the conflict for the Times unless they personally have killed a Palestinian civilian

That’s vastly overdoing it. I think you can make your pt w/o engaging in rhetorical overkill.

I’m a regular reader of the Times and, therefore, I know for sure that bias, or the appearance thereof, is irrelevant. It’s much simpler than that. Israel is “the good guy,” and all reporting will reflect that view. The Palestinians and their allies are “the bad guy” and all reporting will, naturally (if ham-fistedly in many cases) reflect that as well. How do I know this? I READ THE NY TIMES!!!

Shouldn’t ALL journalists in the region have relatives in the IDF?

Better yet, no one should be allowed to cover the conflict for the Times unless they personally have killed a Palestinian civilian. (Remember, the civilians HIDE among terrorists, so they’re not always that easy to murder without access to guided missiles or 500 pound cluster bombs.)

What about that don’t some people understand?

Criticism of the NYT and the rest of the mainstream press on how they cover American politics is routine among left-leaning American bloggers.

We don’t have to assume anything so ridiculous–it’s reading Bronner that makes one think he’s biased.

“Either way, do you think the readership of the NYT is having the wool pulled over its eyes by either this journalist or NYT editorial policy? Is that your claim? The entire readership of the NYT is being duped and only you guys have spotted it?
It’s a little grandiose, no?”

Yes, your strawman claims are grandiose. But obviously many people can be misled by a paper if it is biased and they aren’t following a particular issue closely or if it confirms their own biases on a given subject–it doesn’t have to be “the entire readership” and people who see through their biases can be found all over the place, not simply at this blog. Why make such ridiculous claims? There are people who virtually make a career out of criticizing the biases in the NYT and other “liberal” press outlets, and not just from the right–many leftwingers also complain about this on many issues, not just the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My own bias on this is to think that various human rights groups do a better job reporting on human rights issues than most newspapers, including the NYT.

As for the NYT, I personally know people who repeat cliches about the conflict they’ve picked up from that paper. And I know people who think the world of Thomas Friedman and one very educated person who actually believes he is biased in a pro-Palestinian direction.

In response to Story: John Lerner | instead of Persisting program The original
The sender’s name: Naomi kehati
Sòngxīnqiáo: éøåùìéí
E-mail address: ”
Title Response: Jonathan Great story, You create a contact
Jonathan hyperlin so Naomi.You create a contact In the email I’d be happy Talk Update.Naomi kehati

I guess machines will never really be able to replace us…

You have “reported” some rumours which have yet to be confirmed.

They’re confirmed as far as I’m concerned. When you’re asked a question & refuse to answer No or Yes & when you’re told that your refusal to deny it will lead the questioner to consider the rumor true & you still don’t reply, you’ve essentially confirmed the rumor. There’s a principle in law: “Silence is assent.” That’s certainly true here.

I challenge you to prove the rumor wrong. If you’re right I’ll retract my claim. Go to it.

If you wish to maintain any of the journalistic integrity

Thanks for being so concerned for my journalistic integrity, which needs no validation fr you.