Anti-Israel media bias can manifest when some opinions are widely quoted while others are ignored almost entirely. But it can also take place even when an Israeli guest is given a platform to speak.

On May 23, Peter Armstrong, the guest host of the CBC program Power & Politics and a former CBC Middle East bureau chief, featured a segment about the humanitarian situation inside the Gaza Strip. His guest was Danny Glenwright, president and CEO of Save the Children Canada, a stridently anti-Israel organization that has spread false claims against Israel.

Watch the full segment below:

In his comments, Glenwright made the unsubstantiated claim that “a million children in Gaza are at risk of famine,” and that huge numbers of others were living in “famine-like conditions,” while a video played showing crowds of what appear to be well-fed adults inside Gaza.

He called the entry of 300 aid trucks into Gaza “negligible” compared to what was needed. Armstrong cited Israel’s concerns about Hamas theft of aid into Gaza, asking Glenwright for his response, who instead of answering the question directly, launched into a tirade against Israel, falsely and dishonestly accusing it of “starving children.” Faced with Glenwright’s evasive response, Armstrong moved on.

Beyond another question from Armstrong telling his guest that Israeli representatives say Canada’s position is “emboldening Hamas,” and asking for his reaction, at no time did Armstrong challenge his guest nor push back on any of his statements.

Instead, the conversation was polite, even cordial, with Armstrong inquiring at one point, “what more would you like to see from Canada” when it comes to pressuring Israel.

While Armstrong’s questioning of Glenwright was admittedly weak, that is not a fatal flaw in itself. Perhaps that is just his broadcast style.

But if viewers watched Armstrong’s interview with Israeli Ambassador to Canada Iddo Moed the day prior, they would have seen a style significantly different, with the host repeatedly interrupting his guest and engaging in a testy interview, radically different than the one with Glenwright.

Watch the full segment below:

Eight times during the 15-minute segment, Armstrong cut Moed’s comments short to interject. While such actions are an entirely valid style of questioning, the distinction between his aggressive style with Moed and his genteel style with Glenright was readily apparent.

Following Moed’s answer about Canadian diplomats who wandered into an active warzone in Judea & Samaria (or in media parlance, the “West Bank”) and were met with warning shots from Israeli troops, Armstrong added his own editorializing, saying that “much as perhaps you’ve never heard before someone being called into the foreign ministry, I’ve never heard diplomats being in the vicinity of shots being fired, if that’s the hair we’re going to split.”

The “hair we’re going to split,” as Armstrong put it, was the difference between diplomats being actively shot at, as news media outlets have framed the exchange, to warning shots being fired away from the actual diplomats, as video footage shows.

Some interviewers adopt a more confrontational style, while others simply ask questions and offer little challenge to their guests. Either is entirely a personal choice, though Peter Armstrong has displayed a long track record of providing soft treatment for anti-Israel guests.

But by letting an anti-Israel guest spread false claims largely unchallenged, while aggressively scrutinizing Israel’s envoy, as Armstrong did, was a display of bias that fell short of the expectations Canadians have for Power & Politics.