IDF Interview 7.30, page-2

I thought the interview was hamstrung by the artlessness of the interviewer. She was attempting to establish that the IDF didn't take all reasonable measures to establish the identity of people in the vehicles. Instead of asking questions about what steps they took to identify, what steps they usually take, what additional steps could have been taken, she blurted out that it's a war crime not to seek to identify those you're engaging with in civilian areas, which telegraphed where she wanted the interview to go: a statement from the IDF spokesman that they could reasonably have done more to identify the identity of those in the vehicle. Having been forewarned, the IDF rep wasnt about to make any incriminating admissions.
. The interviewer then concluded by asserting that she didn't believe the Israelis when they claim the killings were a mistake. It's her right not to believe them, but is her opinion actually worth anything given that she's not in possession of evidence to back her belief? Surely the way an interviewer makes that inference is to ask the subject of the interview "What do you say to people who believe you're lying when you say this was a mistake?" Thus inserting the narrative that while it's questionable whether the subject is telling the truth, it does also afford him the opportunity to rebut that position. Ferguson seems to have lost sight of the fact that it's her place to elicit information from people she interviews, and examine the integrity of that information, not simply assert without evidence her opinion on the subject.

. Reaper