EDITOR: I agree with Josh Feit that a cursory look at the media will reveal that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict get a hearing ["Read All About It," June 6].

But upon closer inspection the real question isn't why people don't see that Israel is challenged in the media. The real question should be why those progressive liberals at ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly news refer to Israeli actions as "retaliatory" 79 percent of the time, whereas Palestinian actions are only so designated nine percent of the time (EXTRA!, May/June 2002). And why do those radicals at NPR report 81 percent of Israeli deaths but only 34 percent of Palestinian deaths (FAIR, March 2002)?

As for Israel being an open society with a free press--a country without a constitution, by the way--Reporters Without Borders stated in mid April that the then three weeks of Israel Defense Forces incursions had resulted in seven journalists wounded, four journalists detained, 15 journalists arrested, 60 journalists targeted by gunfire, 20 journalists roughed-up or threatened, 20 journalists having passports, press cards, or equipment confiscated, 10 Arab media offices occupied or ransacked, and one journalist deported (18 April). They added, "The policy of the Israeli authorities towards the international media, especially Palestinian journalists, must be condemned for what it is: a massive, deliberate and conscious violation of press freedom and an unprecedented low in the history of Israel."

But to understand these issues, one would have to go to the likes of Chomsky and Z Magazine and not the media that's controlled by six multinational corporations.

Jacob Mundy, via e-mail

EDITOR: Josh Feit takes a simplistic and ridiculously literal view of the press and an arbitrary approach to research as he addresses what he calls "lefties" and their supposed claim that the media is pro-Israel.

Feit's conclusion is that the mainstream media cannot possibly be pro-Israel because it has occasionally addressed Israel's atrocities. By the same logic, the United States can't possibly be pro-Israel if we can find instances in which the U.S. has criticized Israel.

Feit's interpretation of media bias is extremely shallow. No comparative analysis was even performed. If it had been, Feit would have uncovered USA Today's February 22 editorial that recommended the expulsion of three million Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank and Gaza.

Additionally any real media analyst can tell you that bias goes beyond the superficial and literal, even beyond editorials. Faulty reportage can result not just from what is said but also from what is left out. For example we have to ask why CNN and the New York Times have begun to refer to illegal Israeli settlements using the vaguer term "Jewish neighborhoods" years after Newt Gingrich's similar proclamation in 1997, but long preceding Israel's recent ban of the term "settler" on TV and radio. Even Israel's Jerusalem Post reported last year on CNN's peculiar reclassification.

Instead Feit sticks to the literal. He makes the assertion that mainstream media coverage of Palestine and Israel is "consistent[ly] hard-hitting" and "extensive." His proof? It's "in the papers every day." Feit takes a vague Seattle Times reference to the 1953 Qibya massacre--which isn't even named in the article--and compares it to "hard-hitting historical research from Noam Chomsky or Z Magazine."

I don't believe that the mainstream media is inherently "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian," and I don't believe we should attempt to analyze the news under these pretexts. Mainstream news is capable of honest and responsible reporting, and we should apply a more critical and less simplistic approach to the news we read.

Unfortunately Feit is stuck on "lefties" who claim a pro-Israel media bias, but he never explains who these "lefties" are and how he determined that "most people assume the mainstream media is 'pro-Israel.'" He can easily attack their arguments, since he has conceived these arguments himself and attributes them to "the standard lefty rejoinder." It's easy to win an argument when you're debating yourself. How about some actual quotes and some actual research next time?

If Feit's own "hard-hitting historical research"--which mimics the arbitrary and lazy research methods of a middle-schooler--were indicative of the current state of American reporting, I would be less concerned about supposed media biases and more worried about the depressingly low standard of journalism. Fortunately readers turn to The Stranger for yuks and all-too-predictable irreverence, not for critical analysis and journalistic excellence.

Phan Nguyen, via e-mail

EDITOR: Just when and why did The Stranger join the Oppressor Class. It is really pathetic to equate one of the most technically proficient military machines on the planet with a people who are so oppressed that their only avenue to express their rebellion is to blow themselves up with as many of the invaders as possible.

C'mon, let's get The Stranger back with the people's side of affairs--or The Stranger will be a true stranger to the Seattle scene. It will have lost all of its credibility.

Thomas W. Warner, via e-mail

EDITOR: I feel your article does SIFF and the pass-holders a great disservice ["Meet the Passholes," Nate Lippens, June 6].

I don't have a full-series pass to SIFF this year due to scheduling conflicts, but I have been a pass-holder for the last several years. First of all, if a person buys a pass and chooses to see 100-plus films at the festival, it's really nobody else's business. Many of the movies that play at SIFF will never be seen in town again; and many of these each year are excellent.

Secondly, I've never seen a pass-holder be rude to another moviegoer or a theater employee, although I'm not saying it's never happened. Most of the pass-holders I know are lovely, polite, intelligent, interesting people. Many of them don't see many films outside the festival; they're busy supporting book readings, live theater, improv comedy, the symphony, and other local institutions, or working on their own independent films.

Keith Beesley, via e-mail

EDITOR: Did anyone at The Stranger notice that Dee Dee Ramone died last week? Doesn't he even merit a one-liner in the obits section? Didn't you notice that he was a founding member of one of the seminal punk acts of the mid- to late-'70s? You know, that band that all of your scenester favorites like to claim as a "major influence" and then attempt pathetically to imitate? What is wrong with you people?

Rest in peace, Dee Dee.

Katrina Neville, via e-mail

EDITOR: I got hooked on The Stranger last November, when someone from BC told me it was their favourite alternative weekly. This was important because I'm trying to do a similar thing here in Belfast, but this has less and less to do with why I now read it every week (every Thursday, even) online (and despite someone who was on the snotty side of officious when I asked about getting a copy posted out to me).

Lately, more than anything, I think Min Liao's Chow columns are ASTOUNDING. I wish I knew why. I'm not really a foodie and am unlikely to ever eat at any of the places she writes about, but I still read them all, right away, and love them unreservedly. That's quality.

Shelley Robinson, via e-mail

EDITOR: What the fuck were you guys thinking, publishing last week's "Take Them Out to the Ballgame" [Matt Villano, June 13]? Villano's sanctimonious drivel may be the worst piece I've ever encountered in an "alternative" newsweekly, and making matters so much worse is the article's placement in the NEWS section. Do you guys have an editor? What the fuck was he or she thinking? "If every Mariners fan approached the game of baseball with the same passion and joy, Seattle would come out on top, no matter what the score"??? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!

You guys suck.

Kevin Randall, via e-mail

THE STRANGER RESPONDS: Thanks for your letter, Kevin. However, the article you so eloquently rip did not appear in our pages, but in the June 13 issue of the Seattle Weekly. Inspired by your tirade, we read the offending piece, and agree with you 100 percent.