I have just read Nik Gowing's original piece which you find so objectionable.Yes, you read the piece because I linked to it. On the other hand, the BBC's attempts at balance involve interviewing fellow travellers about what their opponents might say, if the Beeb would ever interview them. So, tell me about journalistic ethics again ?
It is factual, well-argued, and not in the least rabid.This is how Liberals argue. They get caught bang to rights, then insist point blank that everyone else is insane. For the record, Gowing claimed that the US and Israel were involved in a Vast (and doubtless Right-Wing) Conspiracy to murder critical journalists. This is factual, well-argued and non-rabid ? To ask the question is to answer it.
I suggest that any readers of the comment above should go to the original and read it for themselves.Yep - that would the comment linked to in the article - I repeat my earlier comment.
Perhaps they will then be able to judge who they would rather have bring them their news - highly experienced journalists such as Gowing, or politically-motivated know-nowts.Ah, yes, the abuse. This is Liberals superior intelligence in action. 90% of Liberal arguments devolve down to some variant of YOU'RE STOOPID. This is the true measure of how Liberals feel about democracy. The Left wets itself about supposed grass-roots activists taking on multinationals, but they start channelling medieval popes when they get called to account.
I think you can guess which I would rather trust.Trust whoever you want. Some of us like to see actual evidence. But if you're going to take the rantings of nutty Nik at face value, at least do us the favour of stopping sneering at US Christians - at least they're honest about their views being based on faith.