certainly surprising. wasn't it your nutty assertion above that the jerusalem post failed as a reliable source because it's part of conrad black's zionist media conspiracy? i think you did. in fact anyone can see that you did right up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#NPOV_in_light_of_the_Karsenty_verdict 

i guess the rule is that op-eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chrisO's narrative; compelling must-reads which establish the fact of the matter when they do work for chrisO's narrative. court-appointed forensic ballistics experts are "fringe kooks" also. and everything which contradicts chrisO's weltanschauung is a rightwing conspiracy. 

side note, i actually added text which stated discretly that the libel conviction had been overturned by a higher court, but that was rv'd. such a statement of fact is a little too stark for the article campers' tastes. such things have to be insulated and obscured by intricately-parsed verbosity which in the end gives the impression that nothing was decided in the court case at all. the operative definition here for npov violation, after all, is "not chrisO's pov.