I wasn't going to get involved in this but having just visited OxBlog again, I can't resist: anyone who makes the teenager sound like a genius deserves something from me in return.
I'll have a little fun here.

"Several critics have since seized on this as evidence that I'm actually accusing the BBC of not being biased the right way, rather than of being biased period. But, as Bill pointed out in his response to Kevin, the BBC doesn't seem to have any problem writing things like:

'Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.
In fact, he did the opposite - he served in the North Korean army fighting against the imperialist American aggressors and their South Korean accomplices.'

If the use of supposedly neutral language ran both ways, my critics would have a better point."

And in fact the site where Josh Chafetz found this even mentions that the BBC later added scare quotes (no doubt for the American audience unaccustomed to irony.) You have to hand it to the British. They know their own language so well the use it in ways we foreigners can't understand.

And then:
"Moreover, "occupation" is no more neutral than "liberation" -- it has a clear negative connotation (and, indeed, denotation -- one of the definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary is 'Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.')"

But that's what we've done... right? And the 'occupation' of Japan and Germany were, like, bad?

Then there's David Adesnik's shout out to Michael Ledeen. Oy!.

But thanks for coming around Dave: the UN bombing was not an act of desperation, but may have been the result of overconfidence. I understand the similarity. Do you understand the difference?
When I'm travelling I hide from such people.

If I'm a bit sloppy forgive me. I'm a little drunk (again).