Robert,
Perhaps the most telling paragraphs here are the last two, in which Krauthammer notes that Israel has "repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed."

He continues: "Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result?... Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties... Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?"

I have not been watching much TV in the last few weeks, but the few times I've turned on CNN none of this was stressed. Rather, CNN's images imply disproportion on Israel's part, and the commentary that explain these images provides little good context. Rather, a running death toll for each side is provided.

I bring up this particular network because it was specifically mentioned by Krauthammer; and the few times I turn on the TV it's the network I've watched.

CNN, moreover, describes Hezbollah's "fighters" as "militants" -- suggesting that they have legitimate grievances and are only more extreme than other Lebanese in their approach to redressing those grievances. The sense some viewers may get is that redressing grievances through extremism is no vice. Accordingly, both Israel and Hezbollah must have equal grievances --yet Israel is acting with a disproportionate response.

In graphics that CNN runs, the Israeli and Hezbollah flag are shown side by side, helping to reinforce the idea that Hezbollah has some legitimacy. In the current conflict, CNN could just as well be covering a heated city council meeting in the United Sates.

In contrast, the few times I've watched Fox, the reference is to Hezbollah "terrorist" and "terror cells."

How many times has a CNN segment about Hezbollah noted that the group was supposed to have disarmed under a U.N. resolution? This and other aspects about Hezbollah should be mentioned in every segment -- not during an occasional segment.

Hezbollah's charter seems to me not much different from the Ku Klux Klan's. Yet CNN fails to mention any of this (if it mentions it at all) in an ongoing way -- though a segment it would do about the Ku Klux Klan would certainly stress its hate group status both in tone and commentary.

No doubt, CNN's approach to reporting on the conflict reflects its culture. Let's not forget that this is the same network whose news chief at the time, Eason Jordan, had for years overlooked Saddam's crimes, so that CNN could maintain its Baghdad bureau. It's the same network that produced the Tailhook report, falsely alleging that the U.S. military used chemical weapons on its own troops during the Vietnam War. Its the same network whose news chief -- again, Eason Jordan -- had to resign his position after telling his left-wing pals in Davos that U.S. troops were deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq.

One reason for taking such a neutral approach, I suspect, has to do with economic reasons. CNN fancies itself a global network; therefore, its broadcasts must be as palatable to people in the Middle East as in the West.

My advice for staying informed in this conflict is threefold -- go ahead and watch television news, but don't expect to be intelligently informed without reading a variety of print media and the blogs as well.