bareboards2 says... I'd love to hear what he says. Thanks for running this down. In reply to this comment by Rambaldi: It's standard practice in news broadcasts - and *usually* it's not a bad thing, when it's irrelevant whether the broadcast is live or not. I'm not entirely sure about this, so I actually went and found the Israeli guy they interviewed on the Internet and I'm waiting to hear from him. In reply to this comment by bareboards2: But but but... It was from the broadcast that you knew it wasn't live, that is was recorded. Are you assuming that she didn't talk to the guys? I think she talked to the guys. What makes you think someone else interviewed them? So I don't get it. It is just a presentation of an interview, and luck had it that something interesting happened during it. (I'm not offended in the least. I was afraid I was going to offend you!) In reply to this comment by Rambaldi: @bareboards2 - Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor. I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way. However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live. Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict. I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.