You are no longer welcome here. This blog is not your platform for your particularly vile form of anti-Israel/jewish propaganda. All further comments from you will be deleted.

Ciao.

Michael put a sock in it.

You made the ridiculous claim that he wasn’t biased you need to learn how to read.

If you cannot admit that Hams’ dedication of an award to palestinian martrys and his further comments aren’t troubling, especially when you see his work (as shown in the Elder post), then we don’t have much to talk about.

Your Caroline Glick argument is a strawman. She writes editorials. Feel free to point to a REPORT where you see any bias on her part, because that would be the correct comparison.

Are you really trying to suggest he should have no feeling of sympathy for the dead?? That again is just resorting to the ‘robot’ argument, it has nothing to do with impartiality, especially since the comments were made in relation to the awards he received, ie a personal response. You’re really straining Dave.

And what has Caroline Glick got to do with it ?- everything. You’ve set the bar very, very high regarding Hams and bias. Glick has made her commitment to the Zionist cause perfectly clear. You should read her acceptance speech for the Ben Hecht award (for “Outstanding Journalism”), bestowed by the Zionist Organisation of America. She’s received another award for her journalism…from another Zionist organisation. She’s also listed as a speaker for the “Hasbara Fellowships” at IsraelActivism.com.

Glick is a real champion of objectivity. And you have linked to her articles. Yet you’re having a go at Hams who is according to you “clearly biased, and are making no secret of their real agenda?”

So what you think of Glick will tell us a lot about what you’ve written on Hams, ie. is it based on principle or very selective outrage.

Imagine what you’d have written if Hams was part of ‘PalestineActivism.com’ and was listed as a speaker for “Propaganda Fellowships Speakers Bureau”.

You’d be having a fit.

Of course journalists and photographers have opinions, but about the journalistic code of ethics? Perhaps this is to which you refer when you talk of the need to “keep their opinions and the news clearly delineated”, but you conveniently ignore applying this to Hams’ case. No reasonable person could conclude from his words, and his photos, that he was adhering to the code of ethics.

I fail to see what Caroline Glick has to do with this discussion, and you have not provided any proof of her contravening any code of ethics.

But thanks for the laugh re: your comment about reason and truth, two words I would never associate with you..

But the major problem is the crudely simplistic notion that reporters have no opinions, or worse, that they should have none. Pure nonsense. They are human beings, not robots. Thier ideas, concerns and beliefs shape their work, from what they chose to cover, to how they cover it. They must however, strive to keep their opinions and the news clearly delineated.

So, back to the question you’d rather not answer….what do you think of Caroline Glick, now that you’ve advanced the proposition that Hams words are evidence of bias?

And yes, you probably should ban me (you’d be in good company)…….reason and truth are just so inconvenient.

Once again, you are unable to answer a simple question..please explain how Ham’s bias is only “alleged”, as you claim.

If you continue to post comments in which you merely attack what I have said without any substantial proof or evidence, I AM going to ban you. For even though your comments do serve a purpose for me, they are beginning to irritate me.

So who is a paragon of journalistic detachment for you - Caroline Glick??

So you are suggesting his bias is only alleged, even though he has clearly stated where he stands? I’m very interested in hearing how you arrive at this conclusion. We are all ears…