On a slow news day....

what a paper chooses to print may reveal its bias.  While the choice of what's "newsworthy" can be legitimately argued, consider the following stories from today's three newspapers in the BW area:
 
Israel to spend $11.1 million to alter part of West Bank security barrier  (Baltimore Sun).  Israel will spend $11.1 million to change completed portions of its West Bank barrier... to try to ease Palestinian conditions, Defense Ministry officials said yesterday...
 
U.S. faults Gaza bomb probe (Washington Times).  The State Department criticized the Palestinian Authority yesterday, sasying it had failed to carry out a serious and credible investigation into a bombing that killed three Americans...
 
no headline (World in Brief - Washington Post).  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered a powerful ultra-Orthodox Jewish party a place in his ruling coalition, his latest atteempt to shore up a government weakened by his plan for withdrawal from the Gaza strip...
 
So, while the Baltimore Sun thought Israel's committing $11 million to reduce hardship to Palestinians was newsworthy, while the Washington Times thought US criticism of the Palestinian Authority was newsworthy - the only "newsworthy" Mideast item the Washington Post could find was a negative-slanted article that many would see as a criticism of Israel.  Does the word "bias" come to mind?