• news

• News in Israel

• Criminal news and law

The defense knows that salvation has no concept in the press, and exploits it for a war of attrition

During the weeks in which the cross-examination of the first witness in the 4000 case was conducted, Netanyahu's defense attorney exhausted him with questions at the core of the profession.

Salvation is not really a journalist, so he usually answered with stuttering and stuttering answers.

Everyone from a Walla!

Would know how to explain how the defense misleads the court

Tags

• The Netanyahu trial

• File 4000

• Tree of salvation

• Benjamin Netanyahu

• Sarah Netanyahu

Welcome read

Thursday, 17 June 2021, 22:30 Updated: 22:31

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

The defense's strategy in the exhausting and endless cross - examination of the first witness in the 4000 case and in the entire Netanyahu trial, former Walla! Ilan Yeshua CEO, is understandable. One is simply the insistence of the speaker that his announcement will be published, here in another case the treatment of the competing media channels was much more positive for Netanyahu than in Walla!

The basis for the strategy was the clear and justified demand of the defense attorneys to get a breakdown of the prosecution, for what it defined as an "abnormal response" of Walla! At Netanyahu's request. The court agreed to the defense's request, and the State Attorney's Office prepared an amended indictment, in which an appendix of demands was included, which included 230 requests from the prime minister or his family members to skew the coverage. This document became a working paper of Adv. Boaz Ben Tzur, through which, as stated, he tries to prove the banalization of the requests, and his position that there was no exception in responding to them.

Salvation testimony was supposed to end yesterday, and maybe it did, depending on what will be in those 350,000 emails and 150,000 WhatsApp lines from Salvation's mobile device. The court granted the prosecution's agreed request for a three-week adjournment, but not easily. By the end of the month, the State Attorney's Office will submit the relevant materials to the trial, and will allow the prosecution a further period of one week to prepare, with the trial resuming on July 5. If it is necessary to summon Salvation again, he will return to the witness stand, and if not, the prosecution will move on to the next witnesses - the first of whom is Walla! Formerly Aviram Elad.

This seam between the testimony of the former CEO, and the testimony of the former editor, is exactly the time to explain the exercise that the defense led by Ben-Zur did here. Yeshua, as I recall, is devoid of a journalistic record. He never came from the press, he did not really know - or certainly did not He also considered the usual norms. He also did not really consider himself ever committed to the values ​​of the press. He is mostly not a professional in the field.

More on Walla!

The onion-free crying show of the ultra-Orthodox party leaders proved that psychosis has won

To the full article

No journalistic record.

Salvation (Photo: Flash 90, Jonathan Zindel)

Despite this, for several weeks Ben-Zur exhausted salvation with questions that are at the heart of the profession, such as Ben Bradley, the mythological editor of the Washington Post, or alternatively Azriel Carlebach, the pioneers of the independent press in Israel.

Ben-Tzur passed with Yeshua Yedia-Yedia, even those he did not touch, who was not related to them, and challenged him with questions such as: "Is the text here a routine journalistic text?", "Acceptable text?", "Should such a response be requested? "

And "Shouldn't we ask for a response here?".

What about salvation and these questions?

That is, he can answer them like any citizen needs communication, but these are not questions in his profession.

He's not a journalist.

Ben-Zur also added and asked him about an infinity of news, questions in the spirit: "Is the text here negative?". Yeshua usually confirmed Ben-Tzur's assumption with a stutter, as follows: "Yes, this seems like a negative news." Although there is no added value to salvation for any other citizen in this quiz, Ben Tzur of course wanted the answers from his mouth, simply to prepare for the day when the judges will sit down and have to decide the case. So, they will notice, for example, that Salvation confirms that a lot of information on the site about Netanyahu from that period is negative, and then actually what is the indictment about? What's the story about?

Even more manipulative were the many questions about the sources of potential journalists. For example, on the text of one of the journalists he asked: "Obviously the source of her knowledge is the State Attorney's Office, right?". Salvation stammered half-OK, but he really had no idea. These obscure and trivial answers serve the defense. Here the witness confirms - even if partially and weakly - the defense counsel's words, and does not gossip too much. Just as advocates like.

"Approve any headline, including that of Push, on the subject of the Prime Minister's wife."

The Netanyahu couple (Photo: Reuven Castro)

Little order: In a criminal trial, attorneys need witnesses to present evidence through them to the court, even if the connection between the witness and the exhibit is loose.

The defense attorneys' choice to submit all the negative news against Netanyahu, or the positive ones about his competitors, through the testimony of Yeshua, even in many cases that do not concern him at all, is not accidental.

Salvation answered the defense's questions obscure and trivial answers because most of the time he really had no idea.

Ben-Zur knew that if he had submitted the same material in the cross-examination of the next witness, Aviram Elad, for example, a respected journalist who was the editor of Walla, would have received professional, clear and expansive answers to his questions. Any serious journalist, for example, would make it clear to Ben-Zur that knowing that he firmly states that the "State Attorney's Office" is its source, there could be at least five other sources, and mostly would reply that his assumption is trivial, and that he does not really know the source of that journalist. A serious editor would reply to the defense that the division he is trying to make between positive and negative coverage is banal and misleads the court. This is because if the then political correspondent, Amir Tibon, writes a critical professional analysis - it does not go under the heading "negative coverage", which is supposedly symmetrical, to a "journalist" product of an entire night, in which desk editors go crazy, on a mission of salvation (operated by Elowitz '), Regarding which image of Sarah Netanyahu to put on the site from a particular event in which she participated.The attempt to present these two journalistic products in Ben - Zur's manipulative table is clear. It is clear that the news system tried as much as it could to maintain as much normalcy as possible, usually without success, in the cuckoo's nest that was put into it.

Argue against me, what are you complaining about - after all, Elad, Avi Alkalay, and the other editors and journalists will soon be on the witness stand, and it is the prosecution that has chosen to place Yeshua as the first witness in the trial.

My answer is that I have no criticism here of anyone;

Certainly not for the defense attorneys, who are doing their job, nor for the prosecution.

In the first place, I too would have chosen salvation for the first, because he is the one who received the rebates from the Alovichis.

In retrospect, given the tactics of the defense, it might have been better to put the journalists on the podium first, though then another trick from the book would probably have been pulled out.

It's OK.

Everyone is doing their job.

.

Ben Tzur (Photo: Flash 90, Yonatan Zindel)

The point is that abnormal responsiveness cannot be measured in numbers; Therefore, the famous application appendix is ​​very misleading. In the "source" investigation, the journalists said that over time a procedure was created, according to which every headline that mentioned the name "Netanyahu" was required to have the approval of the site's editor. In one case in which Push was mistakenly sent to interrogate Sarah Netanyahu (who was covered by all the media), an e-mail was sent to the desk in this language: "Good morning, we are all familiar with the problematic issue. Prime Minister, must agree with Avi Alkalay (at that time editor of Walla! - BK). "Well friends, if this is not an unusual response, what is an unusual response. It is clear, as I have written many times before, that it is not enough to show the abnormal response to the court, but also to prove Netanyahu's mental awareness of the alleged bribery relationship.But to claim that in Walla! There was no unusual response to Netanyahu's demands, it is an insult to the intelligence of the people sitting in the courtroom, including that of the three elevated ones in front of him.

These demands have also been met with a frenzy of moment-to-moment frenzy, unclear censorship and information leaks to the back of the site. In one case where news of Sarah Netanyahu's interrogation flew from the site, Alkalay apologized to reporters, promising: "It will not happen so that news will fly from the homepage, we will do it smarter, we will not take it down in such a drastic way." The "smart way" - the deterioration of information and its disappearance from the home site - is what now allows the maneuvering space for defense attorneys to smear the court. Here, Ben-Zur shows the court, the news appears from this hour to this hour, without the court being exposed to its sophisticated gradual disappearance. There are an infinite number of other examples of this that appear in both the "source" investigation and in Gidi Weitz's investigative articles in Haaretz.

Netanyahu's lawyers and the Elowitz couple are, of course, building on the fact that judges enter this world without prior knowledge.

it's clear.

Therefore, save all their wares on salvation in the matter of abnormal responsiveness, in order to instill in them the thought that there is a trending indictment here, which has turned accepted journalistic norms into criminality.

We are only at the end of the testimony of the first witness.

This sentence is expected to travel on a roller coaster that will include steep ascents and frightening descents, and it is impossible to estimate what will be in the end.

On the other hand, to get excited by silly statements from media messengers as if the case had collapsed, is really not worth it, as there was no room to get excited even if the last two weeks have been a wonderful two weeks for the prosecution team.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments