I watched most of the program, including the segment with Seva Brodsky, and, frankly, I don't know what to make of it. First of all, the video they showed was way too short to tell much of a story. You saw mostly the tops of buildings, then parts of bodies of the demonstrators, and then a hand (the "grabber's") coming up to cover the lens. That was it, and it all happened very fast. They should have shown a bit more of Brodsky's tapes than that.
Then there was the interview. Although the interviewers were presumably sympathetic to Brodsky, they did not show him in a good light. The interviewer kept insisting that the organization sponsoring the event was a moderate one that actually reaches out to Jews. He then challenged Brodsky to explain why he thought the demonstration was pro-Hezbollah. Brodsky's reply was surprisingly weak. All he could say was that there was one large banner and a smaller sign praising Hezbollah, plus one person who spoke at the event. There were no quotes from the speaker as Brodsky had not been there at the time.
As I recall, the program did show the "banner"--which was really just a large sign--and the smaller sign Brodsky mentioned. But the interviewer talked about how any demonstration can attract unsavory fringe elements, implying that they weren't representative of the demonstrators or the sponsors.
One problem was that the segment was way too short. So points were raised without being treated in a satisfactory manner. For instance, the interviewer never mentioned the name of the organization or what it had done to build bridges with Jews. What Jews has it reached out to? What Jewish organizations? The interviewer was giving you a conclusion without any background to substantiate his point. That was probably because he had little time.
But Brodsky's performance was distressingly weak. True, he did not lose his cool, and he spoke in a calm, level voice. He was articulate up to a point, but not very convincing, and you could see that the interviewer was not bowled over by what Brodsky had to say. Neither was I, for that matter, and I'm sure that a lot of other viewers weren't either. I'm sorry, Solomon, but Brodsky did not come across as a pro.
So what did this segment amout to? A tape that showed little, and evidence of a "pro-Hezbollah demonstration" that amounted to two signs and one unheard speaker. Very disappointing. And this was on Fox News, a very conservative TV network that's probably the most pro-Israel station in existence. That's probably why they had Brodsky on in the first place. I don't think he's gotten calls from anyone else.
What's notable is that Brodsky's credibility was undermined throughout the interview. Showing the pro-Hezbollah signs sort of supported Brodsky, but also implied that he was exagerating. And the interviewer's praise of the demonstration's sponsors as moderates, as well as his point about how any demonstration can attract fringe elements, effectively undermined everything Brodsky had to say. True, the hasty summing-up at the end of the segment seemed to support Brodsky: The interviewer suggested that we should all be concerned about Hezbollah supporters on our shores. Even so, the summing-up did little to change one's image of Brodsky.
Why did they have him on in the first place? It wasn't a slow news day. Maybe they wanted a domestic variation on the story going on overseas and Brodsky was what they had on tap.
Joanne, you know the old adage, "No video, no story." I've taken pictures and put up stories of far worse displays, but no one really cared all that much -- somehow being the victim of an assault caught on video has proven to be of great interest to people...go figure.
There's no way I'm going nit-pick Seva for not coming out with the exact answer off the top of his head that I would have scripted for him had I been able to, or fantasize about how I would have answered. In fact, if I had been there, the exchange would probably have gone like this:
Hannity: "OK Mr. Solomon, describe to us what happened."
Me: "ummm...mommy?"
It's easy to type on the internet with all the time in the world to think about pithy responses.
I think he came off as exactly what he is: A regular person, not a slick media professional with practiced responses which you could argue would have looked worse in a way...like the whole thing was a set up. He answered the questions. He didn't sputter. I think that's a win.
It was only Colmes who added in some skepticism. OK, that's his role, but overall the images spoke for themselves.
We know what MAS is -- it maintains a moderate front, but the fact is, contrary to their protests, it's the face of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US, they allow their email to be used by the NECDP and the SDP, they've posted fatwas by Omar Bakri Muhammed and they're spokesman has said that he doesn't think Hamas is a terrorist group. The media is lazy -- given the chance they'll just repeat the press release..the surface appearance as with the Colmes statements -- but we know better.
Seva Brodsky on H&N: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/SB072706.php.
Alan Colmes is such a joke. How dumb should you be to call MAS moderate? It reminds me of Marc Ginsberg praising CAIR (http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/MarcGinsberg/MG011806.php.) This couple of ignorant schmucks is a disgrace to Judaism.
OK, Solomon, your points here are well taken, up to a point. It must be unnerving to have to speak in front of tv cameras when you're not accustomed to it, and especially in a situation where the format is tightly controlled and the interviewer will interrupt you if you talk more than 30 seconds at a shot.
Still...he should have had the right answers off the top of his head. Say what you will about Colmes, his questions were not exactly curve balls. Asking Seva what was it about the demonstration was pro-Hezbollah was a question he should have been expecting. He should've prepared more to say.
Also, if the sponsoring organization was MAS and "we know what MAS is," then Brodsky should've known too and said something. He should've challenged Colmes by mentioning the name of the organization, and following with a few illustrative examples of MAS' true nature.
I know it's easy to be an armchair quarterback, but I cannot help thinking that Colmes couldn't have been handled better.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I watched most of the program, including the segment with Seva Brodsky, and, frankly, I don't know what to make of it. First of all, the video they showed was way too short to tell much of a story. You saw mostly the tops of buildings, then parts of bodies of the demonstrators, and then a hand (the "grabber's") coming up to cover the lens. That was it, and it all happened very fast. They should have shown a bit more of Brodsky's tapes than that.
Then there was the interview. Although the interviewers were presumably sympathetic to Brodsky, they did not show him in a good light. The interviewer kept insisting that the organization sponsoring the event was a moderate one that actually reaches out to Jews. He then challenged Brodsky to explain why he thought the demonstration was pro-Hezbollah. Brodsky's reply was surprisingly weak. All he could say was that there was one large banner and a smaller sign praising Hezbollah, plus one person who spoke at the event. There were no quotes from the speaker as Brodsky had not been there at the time.
As I recall, the program did show the "banner"--which was really just a large sign--and the smaller sign Brodsky mentioned. But the interviewer talked about how any demonstration can attract unsavory fringe elements, implying that they weren't representative of the demonstrators or the sponsors.
One problem was that the segment was way too short. So points were raised without being treated in a satisfactory manner. For instance, the interviewer never mentioned the name of the organization or what it had done to build bridges with Jews. What Jews has it reached out to? What Jewish organizations? The interviewer was giving you a conclusion without any background to substantiate his point. That was probably because he had little time.
But Brodsky's performance was distressingly weak. True, he did not lose his cool, and he spoke in a calm, level voice. He was articulate up to a point, but not very convincing, and you could see that the interviewer was not bowled over by what Brodsky had to say. Neither was I, for that matter, and I'm sure that a lot of other viewers weren't either. I'm sorry, Solomon, but Brodsky did not come across as a pro.
So what did this segment amout to? A tape that showed little, and evidence of a "pro-Hezbollah demonstration" that amounted to two signs and one unheard speaker. Very disappointing. And this was on Fox News, a very conservative TV network that's probably the most pro-Israel station in existence. That's probably why they had Brodsky on in the first place. I don't think he's gotten calls from anyone else.
What's notable is that Brodsky's credibility was undermined throughout the interview. Showing the pro-Hezbollah signs sort of supported Brodsky, but also implied that he was exagerating. And the interviewer's praise of the demonstration's sponsors as moderates, as well as his point about how any demonstration can attract fringe elements, effectively undermined everything Brodsky had to say. True, the hasty summing-up at the end of the segment seemed to support Brodsky: The interviewer suggested that we should all be concerned about Hezbollah supporters on our shores. Even so, the summing-up did little to change one's image of Brodsky.
Why did they have him on in the first place? It wasn't a slow news day. Maybe they wanted a domestic variation on the story going on overseas and Brodsky was what they had on tap.
Joanne, you know the old adage, "No video, no story." I've taken pictures and put up stories of far worse displays, but no one really cared all that much -- somehow being the victim of an assault caught on video has proven to be of great interest to people...go figure.
There's no way I'm going nit-pick Seva for not coming out with the exact answer off the top of his head that I would have scripted for him had I been able to, or fantasize about how I would have answered. In fact, if I had been there, the exchange would probably have gone like this:
Hannity: "OK Mr. Solomon, describe to us what happened."
Me: "ummm...mommy?"
It's easy to type on the internet with all the time in the world to think about pithy responses.
I think he came off as exactly what he is: A regular person, not a slick media professional with practiced responses which you could argue would have looked worse in a way...like the whole thing was a set up. He answered the questions. He didn't sputter. I think that's a win.
It was only Colmes who added in some skepticism. OK, that's his role, but overall the images spoke for themselves.
We know what MAS is -- it maintains a moderate front, but the fact is, contrary to their protests, it's the face of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US, they allow their email to be used by the NECDP and the SDP, they've posted fatwas by Omar Bakri Muhammed and they're spokesman has said that he doesn't think Hamas is a terrorist group. The media is lazy -- given the chance they'll just repeat the press release..the surface appearance as with the Colmes statements -- but we know better.
Seva Brodsky on H&N: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/SB072706.php.
Alan Colmes is such a joke. How dumb should you be to call MAS moderate? It reminds me of Marc Ginsberg praising CAIR (http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/MarcGinsberg/MG011806.php.) This couple of ignorant schmucks is a disgrace to Judaism.
OK, Solomon, your points here are well taken, up to a point. It must be unnerving to have to speak in front of tv cameras when you're not accustomed to it, and especially in a situation where the format is tightly controlled and the interviewer will interrupt you if you talk more than 30 seconds at a shot.
Still...he should have had the right answers off the top of his head. Say what you will about Colmes, his questions were not exactly curve balls. Asking Seva what was it about the demonstration was pro-Hezbollah was a question he should have been expecting. He should've prepared more to say.
Also, if the sponsoring organization was MAS and "we know what MAS is," then Brodsky should've known too and said something. He should've challenged Colmes by mentioning the name of the organization, and following with a few illustrative examples of MAS' true nature.
I know it's easy to be an armchair quarterback, but I cannot help thinking that Colmes couldn't have been handled better.