ChatterBank19 mins ago
Even By Sackur's Standards....
16 Answers
...tonight's "Hard Talk"... the discussion about Israeli security/internal politics/proportional response is poor, isn't it?
What prevents an intelligent man like Sackur seeing both sides of an argument?
What prevents an intelligent man like Sackur seeing both sides of an argument?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Isn’t ‘Hard Talk’ an obscure interview show on the BBCs World digital TV service. I have seen it, but I am not a regular viewer.
Without watching it, hearing the questions (and the answers) and without knowing who the interviewee was, it is impossible to say if the programme was biased.
Whatever, the Israeli Government commit terrible crimes regularly, which any good interviewer should grill them about.
Without watching it, hearing the questions (and the answers) and without knowing who the interviewee was, it is impossible to say if the programme was biased.
Whatever, the Israeli Government commit terrible crimes regularly, which any good interviewer should grill them about.
gromit: "Often, The Israeli Government are no better than the Islamic terrorists, and attack and kill civilians (not terrorists) with the same disregard to international law. " - always in response to the neighbours lobbing their penny bangers over the fence. Its' easy to avoid if only they thought about it.
I guess it’s the interview with Israel’s education minister Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home movement and he comes in for some hard questioning about why he stays in Netanyahu’s govt despite his threat to quit if not made defence minister. It’s a typical political interview. I don’t imagine it’s called “Hard Talk” for nothing. Sackur goes in hard and Bennett gives a good account of himself.
In summary as I suspect happens every edition, the interviewee gives one side of an argument, and the interviewer presents another. Far preferable than say Julian Assange’s love-in with the leader of Hezbollah a few years back.
In summary as I suspect happens every edition, the interviewee gives one side of an argument, and the interviewer presents another. Far preferable than say Julian Assange’s love-in with the leader of Hezbollah a few years back.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.