There is an old trick favored by US media to prove that they are "objective." You see it on O'Reilly night every night: he concludes his program by reading two letters from "viewers"; one claiming that he was a "liberal" and the other claiming that he was a "conservative." This is intended to convince the fools among the viewers that he must be in the center to be attacked by both sides. That is what the New York Times did today in the section of the Public Editor. And what a name? Why Public? Did the Public select him for that job? Of course, not. He was selected by the Publisher, so he is the Publisher's Editor. And basically, this fellow concludes that the New York Times is quite fair and balanced (wait--that sounds familiar)in its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And yet, he timidly and very reservedly agrees that maybe the correspondents of the Times should try to experience life among Palestinians: "A reporter based in secular, Europeanized Tel Aviv would experience an Israel vastly different from one living in Jerusalem; a reporter with a home in Ramallah would most likely find an entirely different world. The Times ought to give it a try." But my favorite part is when the deputy editor of the Times, a fanatic Zionist, concedes that the Times does not abide by UN resolutions and standards of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that the settlements are not necessarily illegal. Anybody who reads the Times in order to be informed, will never be informed.