After an outbreak of harmony last week, Newsnight has found itself on the receiving end of the media watchers Media Lens' displeasure once again.
This time it's over an invitation to the website's editors to appear on Newsnight.
Follow the flame war here on the Media Lens message board
You can also follow the debate taking place on Paul Mason's blog, or you can add your own views using our form below.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
The e-mails published reflect the balance of opinion received.
As someone who visits the Medialens site I was a little disappointed by the editor's decision to reject an invitation to go on Newsnight. They have shown themselves to be excellent analysts of the multitude of flaws and biases in the BBC coverage of international news and I believe that they represent a growing number of people who are turning away from networks like the BBC because it continually presents a version of events that flatters the British Government and ignores the very great suffering of its victims.
Michael Hardiman, São Luis, Maranhão
The editors of Medialens and Les Roberts are academics used to intellectual debate rather than the rhetoric and bluster used by experienced politicians and journalists who appear regularly on TV. They could be forgiven for being reticent about appearing on Newsnight when the topic of discussion is loaded and already presumes Iranian guilt by attempting to discuss the "Iranian terror network". You have to understand their critique of the media to realise that the "debate" would simply reinforce the existing establishment bias of the BBC rather than shedding light on a serious subject. The British and US governments already demonise Iran when that country still allows full inspections by the IAEA and has never committed a war of aggression against another country. The BBC and other media outlets are airing propaganda for the benefit of the belligerent US and UK regimes.
Dr M Tasab, Manchester
For what it's worth, I think that this decision (rightly) comes down to personal choice. If you understand the arena, the limitations and how you are likely to be manipulated, you can come to an honest conclusion on whether you feel you could go on and still give a reasonable account of yourself and your views. If not, or you have significant doubts, you don't go on. Both conclusions are valid.
Andy Brunt, Hebden Bridge
You couldn't make it up - hilarious. "Media watchdogs" claim they are ignored by mainstream media. Mainstream media invite them onto show to expound this view. "Media watchdogs" refuse. It's catch 22, they harass media outlets via email campaigns that are impervious to reasoned argument, to the point they get ignored by the media, then blame the media for ignoring them. They refuse to have their views examined in debate because deep down they know that actually they're based on pure prejudice, paranoia and bias, not rationality. They lose the argument and then claim "ambush". The problem is that the paranoid left are stuck in a feedback loop, everyone ignores them apart from the "true believers" who share their paranoia, so all they usually get back is self-perpetuating praise from like-minded people.
Rob Jenks, Manchester
Maybe it's due to the fact that there is no real debate in the mainstream media and they can't be bothered going through the motions?
Don MacKeen, Glasgow
We (contributors to the ML messageboard) do not take anyone's opinions as our own without investigation, questions, critical analysis. That's hardly a flame war - in fact, it seems a rarity on the ML board for things to degenerate to such a state. Some people there (myself included) wish the Editors of ML *would* appear on Newsnight, despite their (most likely credible) misgivings, on the offchance that they will get a chance to do something good. I can see both sides - and I think everyone else there can too. There is no question Newsnight systemically avoids the real issues at the core of such things as the invasion of Iraq, and take steps to ensure that others can't easily point these out on their shows. Jeremy Paxman asks "hard questions" of his interviewees, but almost never the questions (concerning such as Iraq) which need to be asked. He and his colleagues work within a framework of questions which can be asked, and those which cannot.
Derek Lane, Crawley
The two Davids of Medialens were obviously very wise not to appear on Newsnight if this is the way you intend to behave toward them. There is no "flame war", just an exchange of reasonable e-mails. Do you treat everyone who refuses to appear on your programme in this immature manner?
Sue Sampson, Nottingham
I expect Newsnight to be an objective forum for serious debate. Seeing an article on the front page of your website entitled "Why won't Medialens appear on Newsnight" makes it seem more like a forum for whining playground nonsense. I have no particular knowledge of Medialens but judging from the tit for tat brand of journalism that is apparently flowing between your respective publications it appears that you both have axes to grind. I think it would be infinitively preferable if you kept such diatribes off-line and spent license fee payers money online on more serious analysis.
Please tell us if you do not wish us to publish your e-mail.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.