Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by moxie.blacksmith 01.11.24 14:37

Jojo1 wrote:Moxie, Your interview with Bernt was great. It was human and natural with no fancy gimics.
In Bernts book he displays great integrity and honesty which is almost like you are sat having an open conversation with him and that keeps the reader engaged and the topic is easy to understand and digest. He is the same in his interviews.
What I would say is to make sure you have your batteries and lights and everything you need to hand, before you start your interview otherwise it is distracting for the listener/watcher of the interview itself.
I'm sure whatever you put out into the public domain will be just right. If in doubt, get a second opinion of your edited version before you publish.
I personally loved your set up as it was natural human and honest which is as safe as you can get really. You come across as your true authentic self just like Bernt does in his interviews. I like to see and hear that.

I did have everything at hand though? Well alright I did drop a battery :D In the beginning, sun was up, hour in, it wasnt, so I change things around, yep.. And no, nothing published without checking first.
Thank you for the kind words :)

Yeah I am on The Brick Journey over here.

by pinkgladioli 01.11.24 14:53

Your English and written English is amazing Moxie, really puts me to shame!

by **CaKeLoveR** 01.11.24 15:45

Nothing wrong with your English at all.

by pinkgladioli 01.11.24 16:06

CaKeLoveR wrote:Nothing wrong with your English at all.

I mean more my use of punctuation and spelling

by moxie.blacksmith 01.11.24 17:16

I have even doubled my portuguese vocabulary on this journey so far

by **Jill Havern** 01.11.24 17:21

So now you can say two words? big grin

by moxie.blacksmith 01.11.24 17:27

Jill Havern wrote:So now you can say two words?

Yes

Bernt Stellander interview - Page 7 1f648

Laranja and arguidos

by Jojo1 02.11.24 4:34

pinkgladioli wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:Nothing wrong with your English at all.
I mean more my use of punctuation and spelling

Keep doing what you are doing moxie. You're doing great as you are.

by **PeterMac** 02.11.24 8:26

Jill Havern wrote:So now you can say two words?

A friend of mine holidayed regularly in Spain.
I once asked him how much he spoke.
He said he spoke enough to get by.
I asked for an example.
He: "Dos cervezas"
Me: "Anything else ?"
He: "Dos mas" !

by moxie.blacksmith 02.11.24 10:09

PeterMac wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:So now you can say two words?

A friend of mine holidayed regularly in Spain.
I once asked him how much he spoke.
He said he spoke enough to get by.
I asked for an example.
He: "Dos cervezas"
Me: "Anything else ?"
He: "Dos mas" !

That will do big grin

by moxie.blacksmith 02.11.24 10:18

Jojo1 wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:Nothing wrong with your English at all.
I mean more my use of punctuation and spelling
Keep doing what you are doing moxie. You're doing great as you are.

Thanks! This is the max amount of brave and smart bounce

Feels good to ¨live up to my actual size¨ but its also like, after this adventure I am never having adventure again... This is it... I will settle for nice and boring life... (yeah sure) .

..but its the calling.

BTW I have found the Brick reading rhythm, no more bouncing around it. I did not look at the time line back there at all but yeah, I can read the requests to power through the details of deception with his voice so thats calming.
Lets get Bernt through that media surface and blow some stuff up, I´m ready clapping

go go go

by **Jill Havern** 02.11.24 10:38

moxie.blacksmith wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:So now you can say two words?

A friend of mine holidayed regularly in Spain.
I once asked him how much he spoke.
He said he spoke enough to get by.
I asked for an example.
He: "Dos cervezas"
Me: "Anything else ?"
He: "Dos mas" !
That will do

Here's 5 more words to be getting on with

Obrigada
Gonçalo Amaral
Joana Morais

With our help we'll soon get you fluent.

by JB2025 02.11.24 14:23

Moxie we all enjoyed the interview, it was honest and natural. I too share some concerns about Bernt's safety eg that he doesn't get ambushed. No doubt he has hopefully good security detail and Legal representation. We know the known knowns and the known unknowns , the unknown knowns, but what about the unknown unknowns?

by pinkgladioli 02.11.24 16:27

JB2025 wrote:Moxie we all enjoyed the interview, it was honest and natural. I too share some concerns about Bernt's safety eg that he doesn't get ambushed. No doubt he has hopefully good security detail and Legal representation. We know the known knowns and the known unknowns , the unknown knowns, but what about the unknown unknowns?

I get where your coming from, I’m glad Bernt posted saying he was back from Glasgow

by **Ladyinred** 09.11.24 14:05

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zSRa6H1OyQM

Posted two hours ago.

by **crusader** 09.11.24 14:41

Isn't that the first one?

by **Ladyinred** 09.11.24 14:44

Yes. A clip from Bernt's first interview with JE. Posted two hours ago.

I quite like the releasing of these bite-sized segments. Refreshing the memory too.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 13:12

This is from 3 months ago, but I just bounced in to it, while searching to see if anyone has said anything new. Summary of the first JE, but in their own words

Podcast Summaries 6 min 50sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV-XA7ei1g&ab_channel=PodcastSummaries

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 17:48

moxie.blacksmith wrote:
Podcast Summaries 6 min 50sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV-XA7ei1g&ab_channel=PodcastSummaries

It's a pity that JE isn't able to go beyond a statement of principle concerning the ‘minor possibility’ of an abduction by insisting on the fact that this immediate hypothesis of the parents, by its broadcast in a few hours from one end of the planet to the other with the spectacular detail of the jemmied window and shutters, broadcast repeated ad nauseam, has unfortunately passed for reality.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 18:12

AnneCGuedes wrote:
moxie.blacksmith wrote:
Podcast Summaries 6 min 50sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV-XA7ei1g&ab_channel=PodcastSummaries

It's a pity that JE isn't able to go beyond a statement of principle concerning the ‘minor possibility’ of an abduction by insisting on the fact that this immediate hypothesis of the parents, by its broadcast in a few hours from one end of the planet to the other with the spectacular detail of the jemmied window and shutters, broadcast repeated ad nauseam, has unfortunately passed for reality.

Did you watch the JE interview though? What I linked here is a summary by someone else, in their words.

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 18:25

Imo, the summary does not betray the original interview.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 18:40

AnneCGuedes wrote:Imo, the summary does not betray the original interview.

Thats not what I am saying - I think the summary is good.

I have not watched any JE prior to this but a quick scroll through shows he´s offered a platform for tens of millions of views just for Madeleine case alone, none of which support the abduction story.

Does it not look like a reasonable guess, that the disclaimer at the end is something someone from his team requests for legal reasons? Go look at the original version.

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 18:51

At the end of more than 2 hours interview JE mentions the possibility of abduction without mentioning it was the MCs' one and only hypothesis, unsupported by evidence. A proportionally large part of the summary reports JE's reserve. Hence my remark.
Do you suggest that JE isn't independent ?

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 18:54

AnneCGuedes wrote:At the end of more than 2 hours interview JE mentions the possibility of abduction without mentioning it was the MCs' one and only hypothesis unsupported by evidence. A proportionally large part of the summary reports JE's reserve. Hence my remark.

May I ask whats the emphasis on the length of the interview about? I genuinely dont get what you mean with it - if he needs a disclaimer for legal reason, wouldnt that need be same for one hour or three hour interview?

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 18:57

In case of a supposed disclaimer, time wouldn't count, you're right. I usually bet that journalists are independent, until they prove the contrary.

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 19:03

JE doesn't know much about the case, as one easily notices. Therefore his mention of the abduction as a possibility didn't surprise me. But in a summary only the pertinent points of the interview are mentioned, and the conclusion was not one of them.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 19:09

He has done interviews on the same case before.

You say the disclaimer is pitiful, I say its most likely self protecting wording, or simply ensuring continuum of the job, making sure he can keep publishing interviews that dont support abduction story in the future.

I havent spent time looking in to JE so I dont know how he is organized, but independent journalists are also motivated in protecting themselves against being sued, no?

Which conclusion was left out of summary version?

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 19:22

moxie.blacksmith wrote:He has done interviews on the same case before.

You say the disclaimer is pitiful, I say its most likely self protecting wording, or simply ensuring continuum of the job, making sure he can keep publishing interviews that dont support abduction story in the future.

I havent spent time looking in to JE so I dont know how he is organized, but independent journalists are also motivated in protecting themselves against being sued, no?

Which conclusion was left out of summary version?

Good question !
Here is another one : hypothesizing is not objectionable in itself. But is mentioning an opinion without specifying that it has not stood up to the test of facts a way of protecting oneself?

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 19:25

AnneCGuedes wrote:
moxie.blacksmith wrote:He has done interviews on the same case before.

You say the disclaimer is pitiful, I say its most likely self protecting wording, or simply ensuring continuum of the job, making sure he can keep publishing interviews that dont support abduction story in the future.

I havent spent time looking in to JE so I dont know how he is organized, but independent journalists are also motivated in protecting themselves against being sued, no?

Which conclusion was left out of summary version?
Good question !
Here is another one : hypothesizing is not objectionable in itself. But is mentioning an opinion without specifying that it has not stood up to the test of facts a way of protecting oneself?

Yes.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 19:46

moxie.blacksmith wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
moxie.blacksmith wrote:He has done interviews on the same case before.

You say the disclaimer is pitiful, I say its most likely self protecting wording, or simply ensuring continuum of the job, making sure he can keep publishing interviews that dont support abduction story in the future.

I havent spent time looking in to JE so I dont know how he is organized, but independent journalists are also motivated in protecting themselves against being sued, no?

Which conclusion was left out of summary version?
Good question !
Here is another one : hypothesizing is not objectionable in itself. But is mentioning an opinion without specifying that it has not stood up to the test of facts a way of protecting oneself?

Yes.

Unless its for some other reason(s), if I remember right he starts that segment something like, proposing ¨couldnt anything be true¨, and lists a few options (I think Bernt interrupts to rule out abduction, but then lets JE roll through his disclaimer) - it could be what those professional podcast people do, to invite the entire general public (no matter which opinion they got) to debate the case in the comments section, under the right material, to draw all the crowd in to it. Could be a strategic thing like that as well. Or multiple reasons at once, pleasing the public, doing the right words for legal issues etc.

I find your question really silly - if it is for legal protection, then of course it would be against the people who do not stand any test. These would be precisely the people you need to protect yourself from. No matter how detailed or vague you are about it, thats the reality you work in.