1. From paragraph 3: "None of Burnett’s questions to Dermer were, in terms of content, out of line. It’s reasonable to ask about the Arab response to the announcement, the effect on the peace process, and even a video clip in which Dermer appeared to be reacting to a gaffe made by the US President. Throughout the interview, however, her tone, and at times her language, is hostile and accusatory."
Watch the video. What do you think of CNN anchor Erin Burnett's tone when interviewing Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer?

2. Also from the post: "Burnett announces that Palestinians have called for 'three days of rage' as though national leaders calling for violence is the most natural thing in the world. She doesn’t seem bothered by it, nor does she ask whether they should call for peaceful protests instead of 'rage.' Instead, both her language and the accusatory tone directed at Ambassador Dermer imply that any violence that occurs is the fault of the government that the Ambassador represents. Similarly, her facial expressions during his response betrays her skepticism of anything he said." Do you think this is a legitimate assertion? Explain your answer.

3. The post concludes with: "Burnett’s antipathy, however, is conveyed to viewers, who will come away from the segment with the subtle message that Israel, again, is to blame for the violence against it, and Israeli government officials are not to be trusted." Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Explain your answer.