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.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

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.

You may have seen C4 News last night analysing forensic evidence of
the Doppler effect and looking at the splash pattern of debris.

I have mainly been watching Sky News.

On 21/10/2023 09:52, Scott wrote:

>
> You may have seen C4 News last night analysing forensic evidence of
> the Doppler effect and looking at the splash pattern of debris.

Yes, I saw that too. Very interesting. The same audio forensic company
also analysed the alleged Hamas conversation.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

I would have understood if she had waited for him to describe his
evidence and then challenged him on it, that would have been good
journalism. It sounded as if either she wasn't aware that he had just
come from presenting evidence at a conference or she was dismissing out
of hand in advance anything he was going to say, so wasn't going to let
him say it.

It was almost: "We don't want to hear your evidence, lets have a
diversionary argument about something that isn't in your remit.".

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk