To be fair, I usually don't read editorials. I don't usually care what some random person's opinion/personal rant is. So I have a personal bias against Editorials themselves. I prefer to read things that are (at least theoretically!) unbiased. The authors clearly state their opinion early and often. They claim the fighting is being reported in a particular manner "neglecting to spotlight the fact that Georgia started this fight." and later on when they claim Saakashvili planned an invasion. Clearly they've already decided how they stand and want to share it with you! I agree that there has been a definite trend (at least in US news) to identify Georgia as "former soviet republic". But maybe there's another interpretation... Could there be a chance that people refer to it as "former soviet republic" to give people a point of reference to a country they may not be as familiar with? (given American's geographical ignorance & the fact that one of our states bears the same name.) Do we not hear the same tagline applied to Estonia or Ukraine? Or do we have to jump to the conclusion that we're reentering the Cold War? I'm not really sure what happened in South Ossetia or who (if it's a single party) is to blame. Therefore reading a rant from someone who's decided which "side" they're on, critiquing those they feel have other side's bias does not do much for me. I do not feel I learned anything from this editorial- and that's why I read the news to be informed. I appreciate critiques of media coverage, I certainly respect that they have the right to their opinions & interpretations - that is important. I simply don't enjoy critiques that are just upset when something disagrees with their views - which is what this felt like to me. But then maybe I should stop reading editorials then.... Welcome them to Newstrust & hope this doesn't make them hestitate to post other things. Open dialogue is important.