Are you claiming you are not? I find it a bit hypocrite for anyone to pretend objectivity.

Are you objective?

I don't hide my views, and I let anyone else have their views and write them on here. That's more than I can say for Lebanonists like Michel Young and Tony Badran who are scared of criticism.

This is a news site, not mainly a comment site. Come here, get the news, and make up your own mind. The only ammunition Young and Badran have is their own views. That's the difference between reporting and editorial.

First sorry for the delay in my reply.

Second the title of the article is not about if Michael Young or Tony Badran are scared of criticism, they could be, I have no idea, it's not my point.

My point is that you seem to be criticizing other people for being "subjective" while I think you are too (which is completely normal).

Even when you are "reporting news" you do it subjectively.
Or do you think I am wrong?

We have already established that Badran and Young are not objective, this comment is about *you*, do you claim to be objective?

You are right, it is impossible to be completely objective. Any journalist who says they are is lying. But it is something we should all aim for. Facts are more important than opinions.

Michel Young says he makes no claim to be objective. Which, from the editor of the only English language newspaper in Lebanon, i think is a tragedy.

At least subjective writers, who shout their own opinions, must listen to other arguments. But they fail to.

I try to keep my news reporting as objective as possible, maybe you don't think it is, but at least I try. I report the facts as I get them. There is no such thing as objective comment, so that's an irrelevant point.

I guess it is a whole other debate then, the problem is that you believe they don't listen to other opinions as much as they should.

For the objective reporting, yes I believe you are failing miserably.

Here, I quote to you the last sentence from the last few posts you have. They are dripping with objectivity :-)

"Ouch. it's coming back to bite you now isn't it."

"Maybe a Sri Lankan maid will be blamed tomorrow."

"'Pure' Lebanese are never responsible. No, they are some of the most irresponsible people on earth."

The facts would have been much more 'objective' without the -subjective - spicing up, imho.

All of my comments are clearly seperated from my reporting. Either in a seperate post, or at the end of a news post.

I could put it in a different colour, but that might be a bit insulting. I think it's quite easy to see when I am commenting on a news story, and when I am reporting a news story.

If you disagree, let me know, and I'll do something about it.

OK then please walk me through this one, it is in the middle of a post, it is not in "humore form" ... I won't feel insulted if you explain it to me.

"Lebanon has arrested four members of Fateh Al-Islam. [fact] What As-Sabaa didn't realise was that Fateh Al-Islam is anti-Syria, and funded by Hariri.[???].

And now a new revelation - Syrian Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed says they've already jailed one of the group's leaders,[fact]"

Bare with me for a second, but are you saying the second sectence marked with [???] is an 'objective' fact reporting or your 'subjective' opinion about the group?

I really don't get it.

Because if you really believe it is a fact -as undisputed as the two other facts around it- I could show you in another comment how your subjectivity is blinding you to very important weak points in the reasoning.

And if you know that's an opinion you made based on the info you read on a blog (was it the angry arab's?) then you are clearly trying to pass it as fact between the two other facts... no? Or maybe you can explain to me how it is easy to see that this is just your opinion.

As I said please bare with me even if you feel my understanding of your reporting is a bit 'insulting' for the average reader.