report says something negative doesn't mean it is intended to damage Israel's standing, nor does it mean that it is untrue. And failing to draw this distinction weakens the Israel advocate's case. Questioning whether Bibi has chosen the right course does not have to mean questioning Israel's right to self-defence. "Reportedly" doesn't necessarily mean that journalists doubt whether Israelis have been killed. It is more likely that, with the Newsnight fiasco so fresh, they want to cover themselves until they get official confirmation. If a Palestinian is "killed" but an Israeli is said to have "died", it might just be that the reporter wanted to avoid a repetitive sentence. I'm not nave. There are failings, erroneous reports and gaping holes in the coverage. Not everything is inadvertent. Editors want to sell papers or expand their online readership; they know full well what a front-page photo of an injured Gazan child does and understand the power of words when they run headlines about Israel attacking Gaza. But, by and large, this time, the press has not ignored the fact that Israel is under attack; that it has been for far longer than this bout of fighting; that this indeed is why the fighting started. It has acknowledged that Hamas is, again, using civilians as human shields, and using these deaths as justification for inflicting even more pain. Not every reporter is out there trying to cover Israel in the worst possible light, or carry out a Palestinian propaganda mission. Sometimes, they're