Context is all. Apparently.

Worthy of note that the Indy seems to think this front page stuff:

Bowen 'breached rules on impartiality'

However, I was intrigued by this subhead:

'..former director-general says top journalists should not be undermined'

...as in being picked up on being 'top' more at getting facts either wrong or changing them to suit their personal emerging truth, enhanced narrative or interpreted event and flying in the face of any definition of professional, objective reporting?

"Jeremy has got a very difficult job to do in very difficult circumstances and this does not make it any easier."

Making the life of a propagandist in the guise of a national broadcaster's senior editor is not really something I want encouraged, frankly.

'... if most of his journalism was put under that degree of scrutiny, then it wouldn't stand up. I think we all know that to be true."

Why wouldn't it 'stand up' if it was good journalism. Truth, well told, and all that? As with Smeargate, the MSM and its news 'stars' and apologists seem to be trying defend their version of truth against one most of us recognise, which are facts and balanced commentary supported by well-researched and unsubstantiated support materials.

Not what 'they' 'think' in a twisted personal version of 'context'.

For me it's sod all to do with Israel, pro or con, but simple judgement on what our national broadcaster views as a smart call on who represents their brand in a specific area of expertise.

A bit like getting a near Somalian relative of a recently deceased Capt'n Omar Sparrow to take over as the BBC's Washington correspondent.