Is Intimidation Affecting The Integrity of The Post's Reporting?

To expand upon Peter Vardon's question as to whether threats and intimidation are affecting the integrity of The Post's reporting, consider this.

We already know that The Post rarely reports any news that casts a negative light on Palestinians. We've recently complained that The Post will not report on the lawlessness prevailing in the territories arising out of Arafat and the PA's refusal to rein in the terrorists. The Post even refuses to report on nascent uprisings breaking out among Palestinians in protest over the terror inflicted on them by the terrorists and the PA's refusal to rein the terrorists in.

Suddenly, on Saturday, July 3, 2004, The Post ran a Reuters article about the public lynching (by machine gun) of a Palestinian in the town square of Qabatiya in the West Bank who was accused of being an Israeli informant and of molesting his own daughters. The reporting of this event cast a terribly unflattering portrait of Palestinians in describing the pure sport (to them) in which they carried out this murder. The article describes how four Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members asked the crowd a la ancient Roman ampitheatre style what they should do with the accused, and the crowd, numbering in the hundreds, screamed for his death. (Alleged Israeli Informer Killed in West Bank, 7-3-04, A15)

I suppose it would be pure speculation to suggest that Molly Moore and John Anderson were afraid to report on this terribly ugly event. Maybe John and Molly took some time off to do the grocery shopping and didn't turn on the t.v. or radio. Still, one rarely sees The Post run full wire service articles on events in Israel or the disputed territories, and the fact that this story of ugly Palestinian brutality wasn't written by The Post's own people on the scene may provide a window into the fear and intimidation in which these Post reporters ply their trade.