That was nigh most seven years ago, so it's hard to be that specific now (I don't tape everything that comes over the air!), but I heard a number of different reporters and commentators on several programs, including "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." They were following the progress (if it could be called that) of the negotiations, reported what people said (giving the proper attributions to each quote), then, in the end, offered the opinion (it might have been Daniel Schorr, but others as well) that each side insisted that the other make concessions that they were unwilling to make, and the failure of the talks was due to the intransigence of both sides. There was similar coverage on Jim Lehrer's evening news telecast.

I never heard anyone say that it was all Arafat's fault because he walked out—other than that there were some who thought that, but that was the opinion of some folks other than NPR personnel, and were properly attributed to the people who voiced that opinion.

Neither NPR nor PBS was pushing any agenda. They were reporting the news.

Okay. I showed you mine. Now you show me yours.

But beyond that, I don't care to continue this discussion. I've tried to explain to you how news services work and how attribution is always given and opinion is always labeled as such—save for Fox News, which is not news, it is a propaganda organ for the Bush administration. This labeling and attributing by legitimate news services is not just to be nice. It has legal implications. News services can be, and sometimes are, sued for libel unless those labels are rigorously applied. It reduces the legal liability of the news service.

So I've explained it yet again. If that's not good enough for you, well then, you're on your own. I'm getting tired of having to explain the same thing over and over again to someone who refuses to get it because it might mean that they said something in error without really knowing what they were talking about.

Don Firth