I read the Guardian very rarely, so can't comment on it.
The Independent certainly has some very anti-Sharon writers - Fisk has the unusual distinction of having been excoriated by both Palestinians and Israelis (and indeed Lebanese, when he covered the invasion and occupation there). Reeves is fairly even-handed, as a rule, but suspected the worst in Jenin... I did notice the rather shame-faced retreats from earlier editorial positions (check yourself, independent.co.uk).
But the commentator from Haaretz is either misleading or selective in what he reads.
the style of reporting is such that the distinction between commentary and news reporting is blurred
Puh-lease. Does the URL below give a clue...?
argument.independent.co.uk
There is a deliberate mix of commentators, left, right and unclassifiable. I suppose you might perceive bias in that the Israelis - being a 'civilised' nation, certainly a modern democracy - are expected to behave better than the Palestinians... or would you disagree with this, and say that Israeli behaviour is justified by the Palestinians? <g>
His innuendoes hinting that stories are hyped or exaggerated for the sake of sales are also rather pernicious... the Independent is the smallest and least commercial of the broadsheets, and was expressly founded to avoid the commerical, hyped or one-sided bias of its brethren.
Lastly, anyone who can call the Times left-liberal betrays himself as (in British terms) extreme far right, or on the ultra-hawkish wing of the Republicans in yours. It's the most RW of our broadsheets, save possibly the Telegraph... its news comes from the same stable as Fox News. It's a Murdoch rag.
Ha'aretz is certainly a liberal paper, and I find its writing generally very good on the ME, and relatively unbiassed.
But this doesn't mean its correspondents pass likewise. |
