Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by **CaKeLoveR** 12.11.24 20:16

J.E. introduces the subject with no hint of bias, or prejudice, which is the sensible thing to do. His guest is there to talk about the topic, whatever it might be. He has to avoid incriminating himself; whether his guest does or not is his or her choice.

by GreenTara 12.11.24 20:31

moxie.blacksmith wrote: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

Thanks for sharing Moxie, most of us are here because we are genuinely interested in the interview, as in what Stellander has to say. Not so much getting overly into the detail of what the interviewer might or might not do to cover their backs, or how much the interviewer might or might not know. So again, thank you.

by **Silentscope** 12.11.24 20:32

Bernt Stellander interview - Page 8 Img_0226

Mr English can Refer to the above example in Case of any Complaints.

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 22:05

Yeah I dont actually know what JE is thinking, I just feel like whatever his reasoning is, its probably nothing to feel any pity over.

I was hoping to find some new commentary videos or something but nah... well, that summary video is nice.

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 23:01

Silentscope wrote:
Mr English can Refer to the above example in Case of any Complaints.

The Letter to the Attorney General signed only by João Melchior Gomes, appointed in September 2007 to assist the Portimão prosecutor, José de Magalhães e Menezes, is more radical, speaking of "abduction hypothesis" and "supposed abduction" : "This abduction hypothesis was investigated exhaustively, all information leading to this and other possibilities having been examined fully. No ransom request was made, nor were there any sufficiently consistent indications to substantiate this supposed abduction."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 23:16

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.

Don't we expect a journalist to have the courage to distinguish between what is a fact (factual) and what is an opinion or perception (emotional)?

by moxie.blacksmith 12.11.24 23:27

AnneCGuedes wrote:

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.
Don't we expect a journalist to have the courage to distinguish between what is a fact (factual) and what is an opinion or perception (emotional)?

What a silly way to form a question. Anne its time to brush teeth and read Brick in bed and fall asleep on it, for me.

by **AnneCGuedes** 12.11.24 23:48

Falling asleep on a page turner book and moreover for you ! How clever !

by GreenTara Yesterday at 1:22

moxie.blacksmith wrote:Yeah I dont actually know what JE is thinking, I just feel like whatever his reasoning is, its probably nothing to feel any pity over.

I was hoping to find some new commentary videos or something but nah... well, that summary video is nice.

It’s a very accurate and considered summary. I liked it.

by GreenTara Yesterday at 1:28

Always a good idea to read a room before speaking. Measure if people are interested in what you have to say etc. a simple but helpful life skill. The yays & nays help with that.

Latest topics