Did you receive an answer? 🙂

Call me cynical (I am), but I see two possibilities here:

1. If McGeaugh is as “innocent” of bad intent, as your outstandingly excellent article suggests, the fine arrows of your elegant irony will not hit their target, and you might get a response beside the points you made.

2. If (as I suspect) McGeaugh’s motivation for his outstandingly UNexcellent article is mainly mauvaise foi, he will not answer, nor will his vehicle, the SMH publish it.

You bet it is!!!!

Unfortunately McGeough’s well written articles are treated by critical readers as propagandistic because of their lack of balance. He would do well to examine the extent to which he is suffering from what Ostroff describes as “confirmation bias” an important concept that I was not aware of until he drew my attention to it

Ernest Black

It is remarkable for its unemotional and rational analysis of a complex situation that tends to be oversimplified not only in the mainstream media but by too many opinion makers who should know better.

Mr. Ostroff makes a strong case for critical reading and critical thinking by pointing out how often we are misled by articles that report only partial information such as the often repeated reference to Israel’s blockade of Gaza with no hint of Egypt’s role in the blockade.

Let’s have more unemotional, fact-filled rational articles like this one.

I look forward to Mr. McGeough’s response

Phillip Osborne