The Last Refuge of Ethan Bronner: The Bill O'Reilly Trick

I really thought that Ethan Bronner was smarter. I mean, to resort to the last refuge of a biased reporter--the famous trick of Bill O'Reilly who ends his show every night with an email from a (myopic) viewer who accuses him of being a leftist and another who accuses him of being a rightist in order to show that he is fair because he gets it from both sides--is such a desperate ploy. I mean, yes, there may be some ultra-fanatic Zionist who does not think that New York Times' coverage is fanatic enough but does Bronner think that his ploy is going to change anything? He thinks that once you read that there were some Zionist complaints, you will change your mind regarding the fundamentally racist and unapologetically Zionist coverage? So today he tells you that there were complaints from both sides, which should lead you to conclude that he then must have been fair--the O'Reilly trick. This is as dumb a ploy as when some Arabs say that they are not anti-Semitic becuase they are Semitic themselves. And Bronner comes to the defense of Taghreed: "A couple of Arab bloggers went after Taghreed with the worst insult they could come up with — Zionist. She was a Palestinian Uncle Tom doing the bidding of her white-man bosses." I never called Taghreed a Zionist: I don't know what she is and it is not really relevant. I think that she was serving her White Man boss regardless of her views--if she has any. I think that she was thinking about her career in the Western press more than about ideology. That is the point. If the New York Times went anti-Zionist for some reason, Taghreed would have done as loyal a job. So Ethan: in this post, you may have fooled a few toddlers in the New York area but no one else. Try again. (thanks Abdullah)

PS I forgot to mention that the article had two accompanying pictures: one for Hamas fighters in mourning, and the other of Israeli terrorist soldiers in mourning. The implication being is that it was a war between two armies. Nice try, again, Mr. Bronner.