Thee seems to be a huge amount of coverage from the middle east.
On Fri 20/10/2023 18:35, jon wrote:
Thee seems to be a huge amount of coverage from the middle east.
Not much more if what I read about the Israeli attitude towards the BBC
is correct!
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Fri 20/10/2023 18:35, jon wrote:
Thee seems to be a huge amount of coverage from the middle east.
Not much more if what I read about the Israeli attitude towards the BBC
is correct!
I heard Mishal Husain attempting to interview the spokesman for the
Israeli defence forces about the hospital explosion. Having previously >broadcast the claims by Hamas without questioning them or pointing out
the lack of supporting evidence, she then began by asking him if he
would welcome an independent enquiry. The tone of the question
suggested that whatever he said about the explosion was bound to be a
lie and wasn't worth hearing.
As he had just come from a conference at which he had put into the
public domain some fairly convincing intelligence evidence for the cause
of the explosion, he was absolutely beside himself with rage at the
apparent bias of her question. She then attempted to justify herself by >reeling off an obviously-prepared list of cases where the intial Israeli >reports in the distant past had subsequently proved incorrect.
It did not show the BBC in a very good light.
You may have seen C4 News last night analysing forensic evidence of
the Doppler effect and looking at the splash pattern of debris.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:21:58 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Fri 20/10/2023 18:35, jon wrote:
Thee seems to be a huge amount of coverage from the middle east.
Not much more if what I read about the Israeli attitude towards the BBC
is correct!
I heard Mishal Husain attempting to interview the spokesman for the
Israeli defence forces about the hospital explosion. Having previously >broadcast the claims by Hamas without questioning them or pointing out
the lack of supporting evidence, she then began by asking him if he
would welcome an independent enquiry. The tone of the question
suggested that whatever he said about the explosion was bound to be a
lie and wasn't worth hearing.
As he had just come from a conference at which he had put into the
public domain some fairly convincing intelligence evidence for the cause
of the explosion, he was absolutely beside himself with rage at the >apparent bias of her question. She then attempted to justify herself by >reeling off an obviously-prepared list of cases where the intial Israeli >reports in the distant past had subsequently proved incorrect.
It did not show the BBC in a very good light.
Are you sure about this? Is it not the role of a journalist - like a solicitor in court - to challenge what is said? Of course I understand
the sensitivity of the situation but this was a professional spokesman representing a government, not a private individual.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 123:16:06 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,212 |
Messages: | 5,334,700 |