He misses the objectivity of US TV news

OK, o brilliant Harvard PhD student. Let me tell you a few things: "During this shot, the correspondent inevitably "catches" live footage of the Israelis continuing to bomb well into the cease-fire period, and inevitably expresses surprise and dismay at what he is seeing, even though he is essentially replaying a scene he framed the same way the day before, and the day before that." First, it is not true that those correspondents express surprise. They don't even show emotions on TV, and in fact, I often wonder why they don't show emotions and why they don't even throw insults at Israeli terrorism, because unlike you, I harbor no admiration for US news media and I don't believe in Western media objectivity, that you so cherish. Secondly, they were covering the constant bombing because there was constant bombing in Gaza, even if you could not hear the bombings from where you were. I know that by watching Aljazeera, you must have missed the great professional (and let us not forget "fair and balanced") US TV news. And then you make the--how do I put it--unintelligent observation: "It is flagrantly political." Flagrantly political? Explain that one to me? You mean unlike the apolitical US media, which is unpolitical? And then you demand this: "but the integrity to do it in the service of peace, rather than the service of a side." Service of peace? Why not say service of the peace process, and throw in Martin Indyk as well. Spare me.