This has to be some of the worst reporting I've seen in a long time. I'm not even sure if "reporting" is the right word.

From the Financial Times: Settlers vow to defy calls to leave Gaza

The article begins - "Jewish settlers reacted angrily to reports on Thursday that Israel will encourage them to leave the Gaza Strip in return for compensation, with many vowing they would not leave."

There is no attempt to quantify "many". Neither is the attempt made to quote even one angry settler. You would think that a quote would have been pretty easy to get. If someone, somewhere didn't verbally state their opposition to the compensation plan, there would have been no impulse to create this story in the first place, right? I guess since it's "common sense" that the settlers would be angry no research was necessary for this piece.

I'm not saying this couldn't be true, or isn't true. But I'm not going the take the word of this reporter that it is.

In addition, the final paragraph reflects the type of bias in the media that was written about by Bernard Goldberg. It's not that what is said is wrong, it's that what is chosen to be said creates an inacuurate impression.

"The plan represents the first time Israel has decided in principle to remove the settlements, which were built in the West Bank and Gaza Strip following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and have been deemed illegal under international law."

I'm not sure which formal international body "deemed" the settlements illegal. But even accepting that they are, perhaps some mention could have been made regarding the past removal of settlements in the Sinai. This would have shown that it is not unprecedented for Israel to destroy settlements in an effort to make peace with its neighbors.