What do you mean "Let it slide"? He repeatedly pressed the guy on the point. He cut the spokesman off when he tried to change the subject. He stayed on the point about Isreal bombing innocents for as long as he reasonably could, and refused to accept any of the evasive and weasely answers the spokesman tried to give him.

What exactly do you want here? For him to scream at the guy, call him a murderer, tell him he's going to burn in hell? That's not journalism, that's self-indulgence. Wolf was doing exactly what a good journalist should do, trying to get to the truth of the story, and he only gave up when he'd gotten as far as he could from this particular avenue.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He could have questioned the certainty that a specific Hamas guy was even present in (or under, I guess) the camp in order to make the admission of guilt more specific. For example: https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1719572283436782057?t=UM-uSl5z89Ua4uaw0p2-xw&s=19

Other follow up questions might include "who specifically ordered the airstrike?" and "if you wanted to minimize civilian casualties, why conduct an airstrike on a refugee camp at all?".

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And those follow up questions may well have been asked, if they hadn't lost sound on the call. But regardless of how you think you might have handled it, there was nothing wrong with the angle Wolf took here. He kept the focus squarely on the horrific nature of the decision and refused to let the guy weasel out of it.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not so credulous to believe that they really lost sound, but okay.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Cool. Enjoy your tinfoil hat bud.