I have three problems with John Diaz's opinion piece: 1) It launches a protracted argument that labeling columnists as simply "conservative" or "progressive" is too simplistic. Yet Mr. Diaz labels Media Matters for America, which conducted the study, "unabashedly liberal." Further he characterizes the letters the Chronicle has received about the study "tilted from the left." If such labels are objectionable when Media Matters uses them, should Mr. Diaz to employ them in similar fashion? 2) Mr. Diaz defends columnists like Patrick Buchanan against charges of conservatism by pointing to his "searing critiques of the war in Iraq." The exception doesn't prove the rule invalid. 3) Mr. Diaz faults the study for counting ... More »

It breaks new ground in asserting that the FBI has a prime suspect in its investigation of who leaked grand jury testimony about the Balco steroid scandal to the SF Chronicle. While the story cites many sources, its key claim that a Sacramento attorney is the FBI's target, apparently was not run by the FBI, even for a "no comment." Thus the lead depends on the credibility of the man accusing his former boss of leaking to the newspaper. If you read to the end, you'll see that this man was recently fired by the man he accuses. It's helpful that the reporter includes these details, but they don't appear until the 16th paragraph. To his credit, the reporter carries extensive quotes of an informed source who disputes the claim in the lead.

An important, well-sourced contribution to understanding the present situation in Israel-Palestine.