Suppose the Washington Post reporter responsible for providing neutral reports about anti-Israel protests were concurrently putting out material like this for Al-Jazeera?:
Thecurrent Israeli assault and the launching of a ground invasion willexacerbate Palestinian suffering immensely. And this is actually thepoint of Israel\’s strategy of disproportionate force – to punishPalestinians in Gaza to such a degree so as to enable Israel toimpose a cease-fire on its own terms, which likely includes anattempt to steadily erode the ability of Hamas to govern, if not tooutright remove the organization from power.
Moreover,it must be kept in mind that Israel is an oppressive and occupyingpower; it can\’t in good faith claim self-defense. The rocketsflying from Gaza indicate that something is deeply wrong. And so it\’stime to ask: what is wrong? In short, nearly fifty years of Israelioccupation, more than 60 years of dispossession and ethnic cleansingof Palestinians and the failure of the peace-process to deliverjustice.
Could The Post possibly expect neutral reporting from this person? It would take him/her off the story immediately, right?
Uh……nope. Because the reporter in question, Britain Eakin, is being used to report “neutrally” on anti-Israel protests, and wrote every one of those words.
Read Tim Graham\’s piece at newsbusters.org, and see for yourself.
Does Ms. Eakin have a right to her opinion? Yes, of course she does.
But does the Washington Post have any credibility at all putting someone with such opinions in charge of writing straight news stories about the anti-Israel protests? No, of course it doesn\’t.
Is anyone awake at the switch over there? Or do they just share Britain Eakin\’s views?