Stephen Walt is dead right.

It seems self-evident that foreign policy should be conducted on the basis of realism. What other way is there?

But there is this strain in American politics that deals with the world as it wants it to be rather than as it is. And this approach has a nasty habit of coming back to bite you when reality asserts itself (as it always will). The Bush neo-cons have openly said that they don't do reality-based politics, and we've seen where that leads.

Kissinger was a realist in that he dealt with the world as he found it and not as he wanted it to be. That didn't stop him being wrong in what he wanted to do about it, but then different people can see the same reality and have totally different responses to it.

You can desire an idealistic outcome but your actions must be geared to the world as it really is and not some wished-for 'reality' instead.

What am I missing here here? Rosen in his last few paragraphs says that journalists ought to be bringing new knowledge into the system, as if this were some radical new idea. But that's what journalists are supposed to do isn't it?

Reporters report and journalists should add value by helping us understand what's behind politicians' easy statements and what effect they may have on our real lives.

I'd assumed that, although the American MSM is clearly not doing its job, the pack nevertheless thought it was. But Rosen is suggesting that these 'journalists' didn't even think that journalism was their job. Is this where American journalism's got to?

People disagree about who's responsible for the situation in Gaza but it seems to me that Israel's blockade of Gaza is close to, if not in fact, a war crime. Israel is making an innocent majority pay for the sins of the guilty minority. How is this OK?

Some Gazans are terrorists so therefore all Gazans must suffer. Is this the thinking?

Or is it that Gazans voted for Hamas so as punishment they should all be fenced in and starved? By that reasoning, then because Americans voted for George Bush (who has been responsible for vastly more deaths in Iraq than have Gazans firing rockets into Israel), all Americans deserve to be punished. Osama bin Laden would approve of that line of reasoning.

It's beyond me how anybody could remotely justify Israel's handling of the situation in Gaza. The response of American politicians and the American MSM to this humanitarian crisis has been pathetic.

Muslims do have a case to answer.

There are people throughout the world and of many different religions who commit violence in the name of their religion. But, in recent years anyway, it's true that much of the violence has been perpetrated in the name of Islam.

And it is undeniable that there is a viciously intolerant strain to be found in some Muslims that can tip over into aggression and violence against those not tolerated.

But the actions of these people appal most Muslims as well as non-Muslims. And it is these moderate Muslims that we should consider to represent Islam and not the jihadists and bin Ladens of the world.

I'd like to see more moderate Muslims speak out against the actions of the violent minority, but every time some right-wing American politician or other bigot spews out his hatred of Islam and Muslims in general - all of them - because of the actions of a few, then this alienates another tranche of moderate Muslims.

You know how it works - there are plenty of Americans who when abroad have to endure endless criticisms of George Bush's America, many of which they might actually agree with, but nevertheless feel their country is under attack so find themselves defending the indefensible. Well that's just how it is with most Muslims.

Any change in attitudes must come from within, and non-Muslims should do anything they can that might help that process. And that does NOT include insulting Islam and alienating yet more Muslims.

You're right, and the British fans are right.

And the managers' and players' objections are valid as well. A Premier League side plays 38 club games, plus two domestic cup competitions (a lot of extra games if you get to the final). The top clubs also play in one of the European cup competitions, which typically includes both home and away legs in each round and could take days out of your schedule with travel to the likes of Turkey or Azerbaijan.

On top of that, some players are also on international duty for their countries in friendlies and maybe also qualifying rounds for competitions like the European Championship or the World Cup.

So an extra game, for purely commercial reasons, is a step too far and it's where they should draw the line.

If a media organization doesn't want an ombudsman then I think that's a fair indication the paper is likely to be biased in its reporting.

There are plenty of news organizations that adopt openly partisan positions and don't really pretend otherwise, and that's why many people watch/read them - to get views that reflect their own. You wouldn't expect these organizations to employ an ombudsman.

But if a newspaper or TV company purports to be fair and balanced then it must be prepared to justify its reporting and take on board criticism of it. And that's where an ombudsman comes in.

So if you genuinely want a reasonably accurate and unbiased take on what's going on in the world, then I think you're more likely look find it in a news organization that is prepared to back its own reporting by employing an ombudsman.