
Even Mike Smith, not known for his right wing views (hah!), gets it:

I'm tellin ya, that right there is some award winning journalism - "how do you justify deadliest attacks by Israel in decades" to paraphrase one question. "Three hundred people killed, some civilians." Oliver asks why Israel didn't use the UN. "Will we see peace in your lifetime?"
Did Oliver do absolutely no research? Why aren't we seeing a Hamas spokesperson (ok, a spokesman, because they certainly wouldn't have a woman speak for them) grilled over their incessant attacks on Israel? Attacks, btw, taking place during a cease fire reached through negotiation. Yep, that's what I'd do, Meg, I'd run to the UN and negotiate another ceasefire that would be honored equally as well as the current agreement.
But, then, she's a See BS correspondent. Why am I surprised?
2 comments:
I saw an interview yesterday (morning, I think) with Shalev on Fox. While similar questions were asked, they were presented as the arguments of others and it allowed the ambassador to provide Israel's side. The interviewer from Fox also presented Israel's side via extension questions based on what Shalev had stated.
Why is it so hard for other stations to do the same thing?
You are not surprised, and you shouldn't be. Happy New Year!
Post a Comment