Thanks for your comments.  

I don't know, but perhaps we're talking about two different things.  

I've no problem with someone developing a legitimate bias or even
engaging it in his criticism.  But I then regard such criticism as
biased, and therefore poor.  

Biased and unbiased criticism are not the same thing.  

There is such a thing as objective criticism -- whether or not the
person also has a bias.  

There's also such a thing as balance, where balance is merited.  

Why does it seem so difficult to find someone who can comment critically
about Scn without at the same time engaging his bias?  

Why don't we see more critics here applying greater objectivity -- or,
as in the case of some, any at all?  

Why don't we see more critics here able and willing to comment favorably
about anything in Scn which might merit such favorable commentary?  

In other words, the *degree* of bias tends to be repulsive.  As is the
liberty with which so many here consider they are right to engage in
it.  

I've read that there may be tens or hundreds of thousands of lurkers.
Even if there were only a few hundred, why do you think so few of them
become regulars or participate in the discussion at all?  

I suggest the primary reason is the quality of the criticism, which
produces a pervasive quality of discussion which is, as I've stated
above, repulsive.  

My suggestion was meant to be slanted in the other direction.  It is
slanted in the direction of the accused being innocent until proven
guilty.  

That aside, it would seem that you're quite unfamiliar with the Italian
judicial system.  It is in many ways a relic of France's Napoleonic
Code, and it is slanted, heavily, in favour of the prosecution, and
against the defence.  

While the prosecution here is required to establish the defendant's
guilt, the defendant is similarly required to establish his innocence.  

Libertarians, as well as others of all political stripes, have been
trying for decades to redress this imbalance, which in practice may go,
and often does go, into abuses which are almost unbelievable.  

Only in the past year has any corrective legislation been passed, and
any such legislation continues to be met with terrific resistance from
the judicial establishment and many politicians.  

Last year I saw a statistic provided by a government agency.  It took
into account several decades of litigation and it stated that several
*millions* of Italians (I think it was four million) had been wrongly
convicted initially, only to have their verdicts later reversed.  How
many others who should have had, but did not have their verdicts
overturned, is, of course, anybody's guess.  

You raise the point that I have not examined all of the documentation
that might pertain.  In fact I've examined none.  But I need not have
any such expertise to comment on what appeared to be an obvious bias on
the part of the journalist, or to suggest my own "slant," as described
above.  

I'm pleased you took this as it was intended.  :)

E
--
Note:  Correct e-mail address is e...@ermes.it.