An exclusive, genuinely groundbreaking, analysis from a journalism heavyweight (former Editor-in-Charge at Reuters). You will never see the news in the same way again.
Fabulous insight, but missing from the subtext is the very peculiar lack of coverage devoted to major current and recent global events. Among them, the conflict raging between Pakistan and India created by Pakistan’s years long radicalization of Indian Muslims and the horrific Islamist terror attack perpetrated in Kashmir. Modi’s military is obliterating Pakistan’s terror tunnels, weaponry, terrorist hubs.. India took out Daniel Pearl’s heinous murderer. CRICKETS !
Or the overthrow of the Somewhat secular Bangladeshi PM Installation of an Islamist jihadist and the slaughter and purge of the Hindu population.
Or the Erdogan /Biden sponsored jihadist overthrow of Assad which began with Erdogan/ISIS genocide of the Kurds , continued post-ISIS , is still ongoing and Erdogan’s goal is to recreate the Ottoman Empire… and all the aforementioned, including the Nigerian and Congolese Islamist genocide of Christians.
Combined with the Oct 7 Hamas invasion and slaughterfest of Israelis, the Houthi empowerment…. all were funded through USAID/EPA ( under the guise of climate crises) including Soros NGOs,”Think Tanks”, “Philanthropies”, corporations, “advocacy orgs” and laundered through the UN under the Biden regime.
You are absolutely right that all other events are ignored in favour of this one issue. It has taken Ukraine off the news and the Armenia issue from Sept 2023 barely got off the ground in media terms. Nachum did talk about this though in the section about the varying worth of lives.
It’s all by design, Daniel.Make no mistake. The minute Israel withdraws from Gaza and comes to some sort of detente, the outrage peddlers will turn their sights on India and “ Hindu Supremacy”. Remember, the Pakistani Islamist terrorists who have been radicalizing India’s once pluralist Muslims are the “victims”.
And of course, the most “ persecuted victim” of “ antisemitism” is George Soros. The most venal antisemitic Nazi kapo ratcheting up chaos globally . The left can’t play that card anymore. They are now the Red/Green Alliance. The CommunoIslamoFascist symbiosis of Cultural Marxism and Political Fundamentalist Islamism that is the 1979 Iran Revolution, Al Qaeda , S.Africa,..
The useful tools of the UN/WEF/WHO/EU/NATO to bring about Agenda 2030/Great Reset One World Order. A post-1984 Brave New World. When they are no longer useful , they’ll be greatly “ reduced”.
Every bizarre global event and movement we’ve been experiencing is tied together. A sequence of distractions to create fear, divide and dependency. The wars, rigged elections, strange catastrophic wildfires,weather events, climate hysteria, violent mobs, migrant insurgency, “Pandemic” , targeted judicial persecution, coups and assassination attempts and assassinations of duly elected leaders who have eschewed globalism, mass immigration… and normalized ties with Israel. The laser targeting of Israel came to fruition when Netanyahu named Israel a Nation State. Protecting Israel’s interests and national security . It was instigated by Obama’s animosity and the U.S. leftist Deep State meddling and NGOs sowing discord. The only path to thwarting global chaos and destruction begins with abolishing the UN. Which should have been done long ago. 1957/58.
The Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Bilderberg, NATO ,EU,CIA,NGOs, “Philanthropies”, USAID, think tanks, bogus religious orgs , advocacy orgs, foreign interventions, the rise of China, kleptocorporate multinational monopolism..
It wasn’t Klaus Schwab who coined “ You will own nothing, have no privacy and be happy” describing his romanticized Great Reset
It was Aldous Huxley , during a 1961 guest lecture at UC Berkeley.. warning of the dystopian future being orchestrated by “ a cabal of powerful elite globalist megalomaniacal tyrants”Politicians, corporatists, media moguls, military industrialists, entertainment moguls, technology innovators and pharmaceutical giants to bring about the “ Brave New World” of his sardonic work of fiction. That was a metaphorical warning of how what begins with somewhat good intent can become an inconceivable nightmare. Huxley was convinced “ Brave New World” was being used as a playbook.
He warned the attendees that it would come about by “ a propagandized, manipulated population , distracted, divided, consumed with fear sleepwalking to slavery.
And described the endgame as:
“You will own nothing, have no privacy and love your medicated servitude”.
They either laughed or condescendingly humored the crazy old eccentric has been.
Who’s laughing now, aside from the self important imbeciles Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart and the braindead mockingbird media? Wonder if they’ll be as amused when they “ Own nothing, have no privacy, no rights and no autonomy?
Great insights. I learned a lot. But I am shocked you fail to mention the dramatic philosophical change that has impacted everything. There is no longer such thing as true facts, according to the universities. All truth is relative and based on our historical and personal biases. And so any opinion or perspective is as valid as any other. These ideas free journalists to focus on or ignore whatever facts they choose. Hence, Joe Biden was universally portrayed as fine, despite dozens of videos showing him lost, babbling, stumbling, angry. Videos seen by millions of people.
“I have raised this point before but I would be curious to know if there are any other industries where higher education has led to lower standard.”
Yes, the law. Law schools have lowered the bar for entry and the profession has taken a nose-dive during the last 25-30 years. This is manifested by the increasing numbers of lawyers that are disbarred or disciplined by the Bar association, as well as the need for “civility and professionalism continuing legal education courses” required to keep one’s license to practice. I call them “don’t be an asshole training.”
As a lawyer who never practised due to restrictive rules of admission in the UK (very few barrister places), I wish that they were as lax where I come from!!!
You make a very good point. The Florida Bar exam is written to keep students from being admitted. In Illinois, one can request to enter the Bar if already barred in another state, but the process is so purposefully cumbersome that many give up. The other end of the spectrum (making it too difficult) keeps good people who are poor test takers out. I passed the essay portion on my first try. But the multi state bar exam took me three tries and a lot of money in fees!
If my experience is any guide, the situation is even worse. It’s not just that students learn everything they need to know in college and go out and apply that it to the world like an iron-on decal. It’s that by their second year, or even their second semester, they’ve concluded that college is a game, and most professors (outside STEM fields) are ideological commissars or sanctimonious twits. They’re not wrong; and of course the faculty know this too. But gradually the students get used to it and grow to like it. College is pretty nice—especially nowadays when you’re basically guaranteed an A whether you show up or not. So students end up wanting to remake the world in the image of campus: low expectations, guaranteed amenities, and nice, moderately smart, and basically well-intentioned people catering to your every whim.
This Sunday I'm interviewing Nachum about his groundbreaking article on the media. Write below in the comments, any questions you'd like me to ask him. 👇
Critique recalls many of Matti Friedman’s complaints as AP Bureau Chief in his 2014 piece in The Atlantic, particularly the part about fearless reporting from Tel Aviv hotel bars and amazingly speaking neither Hebrew nor Arabic not being disqualifying for the beat.
But the more recent requirement for consonance to a truthy narrative and audience capture, combined with a dishonest use of terrorist stringers to file false stories sounds like the problem Friedman wrote has metastasized.
Isreal, despite a history of brutally repressing, subjugating and dehumanizing the Palestinians, is painted as a victim. The Palestinians are painted as subhuman terrorists who have no reason to want to fight back.
Interesting story. My take away is that the distribution of news and the understanding of news has changed. Mr Nachum talks mainly about the generation of news and its distribution. He is not happy about how this is done today and the example he gives is the coverage of the Hamas Israeli war, the Ukraine war and the under reporting of various African wars. Fair enough. As part of the narrative it all makes sense. There is a sense in this story though, that goes like this. When will the distributioners of news wake up and be like they were in the fifties and sixties, and hence, presumably, truth according to Mr Nathum will prevail. Well I suggest this is not likely to happen. He himself gives plenty of reasons why it wont.
What he doesnt cover is that the masses are not interested in the news. The smaller subset of the masses that is interested does not do the effort to understand what they read. An even smaller subset of that masses of people that are interested in the news, are in an idealogical bubble and will only read news that confirms their biases. That then leaves a very small subset of the subsets identified who genuinely understand what is going on in the world today. They generally speaking are academics and they are being silenced. That then leaves a couple of thousand people in the world who are able to shape the world according to their personal needs. In the fifties and sixties it was even worse than it is today. We had just won the the war. God was clearly on our side. We had a model, get rid of the badies and eventually everyone would be happy. And we were. Having babies buying houses and cars. These babies had babies and these terrors are now shaping the information world with their visions as detailed by todays news distributers.
So lets forget for a moment the wars in the middle east. They are really the release of social tension in the democratic world.
Not only has the distribution of (truthful) news collapsed because journalists dont know how to do it effectively, but the masses are not capable of understanding what is happening. They have no idea. And to emphasize again there is no model available to educate the public.
Lastly lastly i suggest that until the upper middle class and the elites are genuinely suffering nothing will change.
An exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of the confounding dynamic of anti-Israel bias in the media. The problem is the feedback loop…the more people read, the more they turn on Israel. The more they turn on Israel, the more anti-Israel content is pushed out. And the cycle continues.
I take zero solace in the fact that “only half” of public sentiment is anti-Israel. We are talking about a war on terror and only terrorists should oppose it!
I think "sliding death scale" as you call it is really important. I hear this so often in pro-Israel and it's completely true, but it also frustrates me. Instead of using it rhetorically, let's work to bring much needed attention to these other conflicts.
There was a time when propaganda pieces like this were aimed at the general public because their purpose was to manipulate public opinion and create sympathy for Zionism. Today, it has become impossible to make even the most uninformed believe this nonsense, and Zionist propaganda has changed its audience: it is now aimed at the “home front,” at those who are already part of the cult. It is no longer a matter of convincing skeptics (an impossible task). It is a matter of motivating followers to keep the front strong: “Keep believing. Greater Israel is near… a few more tens of thousands of deaths, a few more small massacres, a last remnant of genocide, and victory will come. But you must not give up. Do not give in to dismay, to the fear of some future Nuremberg, or – God forbid! – to anything like a doubt of conscience or a spasm of humanity…”
I came across this article because I am interested in opinions that differ from mine. If you are also interested in hearing the opinion of those who think differently, I would like to underline some of the theses expressed in the article.
1) Israel has a bad image in the media because journalism is in decline. I would like to know: how would the journalism of the golden age have reported the daily massacre of women and children which happens today in Palestine? Would it have found a kinder way to describe the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugees?
Is there a way to describe these things without implying that they are abominable?
2) Even in the golden age “there were newspapers that were good and bad, quality and tabloid, Right and Left…”
So on one side we have “good, quality, Right”… On the other “bad, tabloid, Left”. Is there perhaps some political prejudice here? Don't you think that any open-minded person (right or left) would stop being interested in your article after this?
3) Journalism was good before “the internet disintermediated the flow of news and information”. In other words: when it was easier to hide inconvenient news because the “intermediaries” took care of regulating them in the most appropriate way. In that happy era we could not see the images of indiscriminate bombings or listen to certain speeches of politicians, settlers and ordinary Israelis. The fanaticism of the Zionist extremists was confined, sweetened, and did not come out into the light of day.
4) “The BBC funds itself largely through a license fee that the British public pays … The downside is that the BBC is accountable mainly to itself. A lack of accountability is problematic...”
And who else should BBC be accountable to? To politics? To some right-thinking and well-oriented journalistic circle?
BBC should be accountable only to the public. You know… this is how things work in a liberal system: “That’s the Press, baby!”. But we all know that this is not the case, ad BBC too is not really independent… Describing the BBC as a media outlet full of anti-Israel bias is victimism as usual.
5) “The war in Gaza is big news, but the idea that it is of such importance that it affects the lives of those angrily demonstrating against it does not stack up”. I don’t know how to answer this. It sounds like "it's none of your business so don't get involved." It seems like a line from a gangster movie…
6) “The Israel-Palestine conflict gets far more coverage than many more deadly conflicts… Myanmar… Yemen… Syria”. And tell me: how do these conflict affect your life instead? You don’t want us to worry about the Palestinian genocide, but you want us to worry more about Myanmar. Uhm, it sounds a little suspicious... You know, the Palestinian genocide is our genocide because WE are selling weapons and supporting Israel. We are the allies of Israel. Without American and European support Israel could not even survive. We are involved in it.
7) “In terms of coverage, Palestinian suffering gets more coverage than Jewish suffering”. Well, if the Israelis did not apply a retaliation ratio 30:1 or so, perhaps the press coverage of Palestinian suffering would not be 30 times greater than coverage of Jewish suffering. I mean, how many casualties are there in a Yemeni missile bombing or in a Palestinian rocket attack, and how many are there in a typical Israeli bombing?
1. He already told you how they would have reported the bombing of Gaza. They would have been in awe that Israel was able to retaliate to the barbaric slaughter and kidnapping for ransom/torture/raping/killing of innocent Israelis so overwhelmingly as they did in 1967 and 1973. Why the confusion?
2. I don't think so. The left is consistently negative on all the things I hold dear - freedom, democracy, capitalism, free-markets, while the right is not. Maybe I just don't trust the left to report rather than manipulate.
3. Actually, based on recent history of the media and facts, I don't appreciate the media interpreting anything for me. A perfect example is the election in 2016 when, immediately after it was apparent that Donald Trump won after a successful campaign that included direct communication with voters via social media, Christiane Amanpour declared "I can't believe it, he did an end run right around us". Yes, that is right sweetie, he bypassed your vile slurs against him in your traditional effort to twist the news to effect your desired result. You lost your campaign Christiane. So then they made sure to corrupt social media (or just management at tech giants) to shut down conservative voices. Yes, we well know how the left-leaning legacy media operate.
4. There is nothing required to say about the leftist, Marxist BBC.
5. It is not "none of your business. It is simple - show as much interest in and humanity for all people suffering such actions, not just absolute focus on Palestinians. Such selective outrage is obvious antisemitic bias.
6. Same answer as 5. above.
7. No one wins a war with "proportionality". After almost 7 decades of Palestinians refusing everything the they had asked for, excluding the destruction of Israel, it is time for an overwhelming force to be applied in the hopes of bringing the Palestinians to an agreement. Sort of like the current treatment of Iran in 2026. The difference between Iran and Gaza is that 85% of Gazans support the terrorist Hamas while only 30% of Iran support the terrorist theocracy. The Persians want their country back and the US wants them to take it back.
Daniel. This reply proves your point. No mention of the Hamas massacre. No understanding of Hamas and its objectives. No knowledge of the history of the area nor the many wars and conflicts. Uses the word genocide without understanding its meaning. No knowledge of who funds Hamas and why…no regional knowledge. No understanding of how he came to be so completely misinformed.
I disagree with some of your conclusions Daniel…they are political and not good journalism but agree on the
The audience is an ever shrinking pool of hyper consumers. Writ large half of people in the English speaking world watch or read zero news content, about a third once a month to weekly, 10 percent daily. The rest many times a day. The media outlets want the wire to wire all day consumers that anxiously gobble up whatever is published-OJ coverage, 9-11, disasters.
“Journalists used to learn about the world by reporting on it. Today, they learn about the world at university, then go out and start writing about it. They think they know what is going on before they have done any reporting.” Love it. Absolutely spot-on.
The broken business model is just the modern delivery system; it is not the source. The media is acting as a mirror, irresponsibly profiting off an ancient prejudice that already exists in the public, while simultaneously driving and reinventing that same hatred for a new generation.
If you truly believe this bias is just a byproduct of "where journalists like to drink espresso" or a lack of classified ads, I strongly suggest you read the public submissions to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion currently underway in Australia. Thousands of testimonies detail the severe, lived reality of antisemitism across media, schools, and public spaces—proving that this is a deeply ingrained societal crisis, not just a 21st-century industry glitch.
To frame this purely as a structural newsroom issue is not just shallow; it is insulting to anyone who actually understands and experiences the reality of antisemitism.
The article is excellent, but the introduction feels a bit over-the-top again, and it actually puts me off sharing it even though the piece itself is a must-read. The hypey tone can come across as a little much, and it risks overshadowing the quality of the analysis. A more understated intro would make the work more accessible and easier to pass on.
Fabulous insight, but missing from the subtext is the very peculiar lack of coverage devoted to major current and recent global events. Among them, the conflict raging between Pakistan and India created by Pakistan’s years long radicalization of Indian Muslims and the horrific Islamist terror attack perpetrated in Kashmir. Modi’s military is obliterating Pakistan’s terror tunnels, weaponry, terrorist hubs.. India took out Daniel Pearl’s heinous murderer. CRICKETS !
Or the overthrow of the Somewhat secular Bangladeshi PM Installation of an Islamist jihadist and the slaughter and purge of the Hindu population.
Or the Erdogan /Biden sponsored jihadist overthrow of Assad which began with Erdogan/ISIS genocide of the Kurds , continued post-ISIS , is still ongoing and Erdogan’s goal is to recreate the Ottoman Empire… and all the aforementioned, including the Nigerian and Congolese Islamist genocide of Christians.
Combined with the Oct 7 Hamas invasion and slaughterfest of Israelis, the Houthi empowerment…. all were funded through USAID/EPA ( under the guise of climate crises) including Soros NGOs,”Think Tanks”, “Philanthropies”, corporations, “advocacy orgs” and laundered through the UN under the Biden regime.
Nary a peep!
You are absolutely right that all other events are ignored in favour of this one issue. It has taken Ukraine off the news and the Armenia issue from Sept 2023 barely got off the ground in media terms. Nachum did talk about this though in the section about the varying worth of lives.
It’s all by design, Daniel.Make no mistake. The minute Israel withdraws from Gaza and comes to some sort of detente, the outrage peddlers will turn their sights on India and “ Hindu Supremacy”. Remember, the Pakistani Islamist terrorists who have been radicalizing India’s once pluralist Muslims are the “victims”.
And of course, the most “ persecuted victim” of “ antisemitism” is George Soros. The most venal antisemitic Nazi kapo ratcheting up chaos globally . The left can’t play that card anymore. They are now the Red/Green Alliance. The CommunoIslamoFascist symbiosis of Cultural Marxism and Political Fundamentalist Islamism that is the 1979 Iran Revolution, Al Qaeda , S.Africa,..
The useful tools of the UN/WEF/WHO/EU/NATO to bring about Agenda 2030/Great Reset One World Order. A post-1984 Brave New World. When they are no longer useful , they’ll be greatly “ reduced”.
Every bizarre global event and movement we’ve been experiencing is tied together. A sequence of distractions to create fear, divide and dependency. The wars, rigged elections, strange catastrophic wildfires,weather events, climate hysteria, violent mobs, migrant insurgency, “Pandemic” , targeted judicial persecution, coups and assassination attempts and assassinations of duly elected leaders who have eschewed globalism, mass immigration… and normalized ties with Israel. The laser targeting of Israel came to fruition when Netanyahu named Israel a Nation State. Protecting Israel’s interests and national security . It was instigated by Obama’s animosity and the U.S. leftist Deep State meddling and NGOs sowing discord. The only path to thwarting global chaos and destruction begins with abolishing the UN. Which should have been done long ago. 1957/58.
The Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Bilderberg, NATO ,EU,CIA,NGOs, “Philanthropies”, USAID, think tanks, bogus religious orgs , advocacy orgs, foreign interventions, the rise of China, kleptocorporate multinational monopolism..
It wasn’t Klaus Schwab who coined “ You will own nothing, have no privacy and be happy” describing his romanticized Great Reset
It was Aldous Huxley , during a 1961 guest lecture at UC Berkeley.. warning of the dystopian future being orchestrated by “ a cabal of powerful elite globalist megalomaniacal tyrants”Politicians, corporatists, media moguls, military industrialists, entertainment moguls, technology innovators and pharmaceutical giants to bring about the “ Brave New World” of his sardonic work of fiction. That was a metaphorical warning of how what begins with somewhat good intent can become an inconceivable nightmare. Huxley was convinced “ Brave New World” was being used as a playbook.
He warned the attendees that it would come about by “ a propagandized, manipulated population , distracted, divided, consumed with fear sleepwalking to slavery.
And described the endgame as:
“You will own nothing, have no privacy and love your medicated servitude”.
They either laughed or condescendingly humored the crazy old eccentric has been.
Who’s laughing now, aside from the self important imbeciles Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart and the braindead mockingbird media? Wonder if they’ll be as amused when they “ Own nothing, have no privacy, no rights and no autonomy?
Great insights. I learned a lot. But I am shocked you fail to mention the dramatic philosophical change that has impacted everything. There is no longer such thing as true facts, according to the universities. All truth is relative and based on our historical and personal biases. And so any opinion or perspective is as valid as any other. These ideas free journalists to focus on or ignore whatever facts they choose. Hence, Joe Biden was universally portrayed as fine, despite dozens of videos showing him lost, babbling, stumbling, angry. Videos seen by millions of people.
Thanks for the feedback. I will publish a post to rectify it, if you're a subscriber.
It’s all about feelings
The young women with their gross kefiyas have mental health issues as they shriek free the non existent country of Palestine
It gives warped meaning to their empty lives
“I have raised this point before but I would be curious to know if there are any other industries where higher education has led to lower standard.”
Yes, the law. Law schools have lowered the bar for entry and the profession has taken a nose-dive during the last 25-30 years. This is manifested by the increasing numbers of lawyers that are disbarred or disciplined by the Bar association, as well as the need for “civility and professionalism continuing legal education courses” required to keep one’s license to practice. I call them “don’t be an asshole training.”
As a lawyer who never practised due to restrictive rules of admission in the UK (very few barrister places), I wish that they were as lax where I come from!!!
You make a very good point. The Florida Bar exam is written to keep students from being admitted. In Illinois, one can request to enter the Bar if already barred in another state, but the process is so purposefully cumbersome that many give up. The other end of the spectrum (making it too difficult) keeps good people who are poor test takers out. I passed the essay portion on my first try. But the multi state bar exam took me three tries and a lot of money in fees!
If my experience is any guide, the situation is even worse. It’s not just that students learn everything they need to know in college and go out and apply that it to the world like an iron-on decal. It’s that by their second year, or even their second semester, they’ve concluded that college is a game, and most professors (outside STEM fields) are ideological commissars or sanctimonious twits. They’re not wrong; and of course the faculty know this too. But gradually the students get used to it and grow to like it. College is pretty nice—especially nowadays when you’re basically guaranteed an A whether you show up or not. So students end up wanting to remake the world in the image of campus: low expectations, guaranteed amenities, and nice, moderately smart, and basically well-intentioned people catering to your every whim.
THE ACCOMPANYING PODCAST IS HERE:https://danielclarkeserret.substack.com/p/the-israel-media-bias-interview?r=2bk821
This Sunday I'm interviewing Nachum about his groundbreaking article on the media. Write below in the comments, any questions you'd like me to ask him. 👇
Critique recalls many of Matti Friedman’s complaints as AP Bureau Chief in his 2014 piece in The Atlantic, particularly the part about fearless reporting from Tel Aviv hotel bars and amazingly speaking neither Hebrew nor Arabic not being disqualifying for the beat.
But the more recent requirement for consonance to a truthy narrative and audience capture, combined with a dishonest use of terrorist stringers to file false stories sounds like the problem Friedman wrote has metastasized.
This article on bias is totally biased.
Isreal, despite a history of brutally repressing, subjugating and dehumanizing the Palestinians, is painted as a victim. The Palestinians are painted as subhuman terrorists who have no reason to want to fight back.
Remind me when the Palestinians chose a party of peace to lead them.
Remind me how the Palestinians reacted to the peace process and Barak's peace efforts.
The 2nd Intifada has not been forgiven.
You are a brick wall.
A wailing wall, at that...
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
I'm sorry I hurt you.
Interesting story. My take away is that the distribution of news and the understanding of news has changed. Mr Nachum talks mainly about the generation of news and its distribution. He is not happy about how this is done today and the example he gives is the coverage of the Hamas Israeli war, the Ukraine war and the under reporting of various African wars. Fair enough. As part of the narrative it all makes sense. There is a sense in this story though, that goes like this. When will the distributioners of news wake up and be like they were in the fifties and sixties, and hence, presumably, truth according to Mr Nathum will prevail. Well I suggest this is not likely to happen. He himself gives plenty of reasons why it wont.
What he doesnt cover is that the masses are not interested in the news. The smaller subset of the masses that is interested does not do the effort to understand what they read. An even smaller subset of that masses of people that are interested in the news, are in an idealogical bubble and will only read news that confirms their biases. That then leaves a very small subset of the subsets identified who genuinely understand what is going on in the world today. They generally speaking are academics and they are being silenced. That then leaves a couple of thousand people in the world who are able to shape the world according to their personal needs. In the fifties and sixties it was even worse than it is today. We had just won the the war. God was clearly on our side. We had a model, get rid of the badies and eventually everyone would be happy. And we were. Having babies buying houses and cars. These babies had babies and these terrors are now shaping the information world with their visions as detailed by todays news distributers.
So lets forget for a moment the wars in the middle east. They are really the release of social tension in the democratic world.
Not only has the distribution of (truthful) news collapsed because journalists dont know how to do it effectively, but the masses are not capable of understanding what is happening. They have no idea. And to emphasize again there is no model available to educate the public.
Lastly lastly i suggest that until the upper middle class and the elites are genuinely suffering nothing will change.
Thankyou
An exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of the confounding dynamic of anti-Israel bias in the media. The problem is the feedback loop…the more people read, the more they turn on Israel. The more they turn on Israel, the more anti-Israel content is pushed out. And the cycle continues.
I take zero solace in the fact that “only half” of public sentiment is anti-Israel. We are talking about a war on terror and only terrorists should oppose it!
I think "sliding death scale" as you call it is really important. I hear this so often in pro-Israel and it's completely true, but it also frustrates me. Instead of using it rhetorically, let's work to bring much needed attention to these other conflicts.
I totally agree Gemna.
There was a time when propaganda pieces like this were aimed at the general public because their purpose was to manipulate public opinion and create sympathy for Zionism. Today, it has become impossible to make even the most uninformed believe this nonsense, and Zionist propaganda has changed its audience: it is now aimed at the “home front,” at those who are already part of the cult. It is no longer a matter of convincing skeptics (an impossible task). It is a matter of motivating followers to keep the front strong: “Keep believing. Greater Israel is near… a few more tens of thousands of deaths, a few more small massacres, a last remnant of genocide, and victory will come. But you must not give up. Do not give in to dismay, to the fear of some future Nuremberg, or – God forbid! – to anything like a doubt of conscience or a spasm of humanity…”
Would you care to respond to the arguments sir?
I came across this article because I am interested in opinions that differ from mine. If you are also interested in hearing the opinion of those who think differently, I would like to underline some of the theses expressed in the article.
1) Israel has a bad image in the media because journalism is in decline. I would like to know: how would the journalism of the golden age have reported the daily massacre of women and children which happens today in Palestine? Would it have found a kinder way to describe the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugees?
Is there a way to describe these things without implying that they are abominable?
2) Even in the golden age “there were newspapers that were good and bad, quality and tabloid, Right and Left…”
So on one side we have “good, quality, Right”… On the other “bad, tabloid, Left”. Is there perhaps some political prejudice here? Don't you think that any open-minded person (right or left) would stop being interested in your article after this?
3) Journalism was good before “the internet disintermediated the flow of news and information”. In other words: when it was easier to hide inconvenient news because the “intermediaries” took care of regulating them in the most appropriate way. In that happy era we could not see the images of indiscriminate bombings or listen to certain speeches of politicians, settlers and ordinary Israelis. The fanaticism of the Zionist extremists was confined, sweetened, and did not come out into the light of day.
4) “The BBC funds itself largely through a license fee that the British public pays … The downside is that the BBC is accountable mainly to itself. A lack of accountability is problematic...”
And who else should BBC be accountable to? To politics? To some right-thinking and well-oriented journalistic circle?
BBC should be accountable only to the public. You know… this is how things work in a liberal system: “That’s the Press, baby!”. But we all know that this is not the case, ad BBC too is not really independent… Describing the BBC as a media outlet full of anti-Israel bias is victimism as usual.
5) “The war in Gaza is big news, but the idea that it is of such importance that it affects the lives of those angrily demonstrating against it does not stack up”. I don’t know how to answer this. It sounds like "it's none of your business so don't get involved." It seems like a line from a gangster movie…
6) “The Israel-Palestine conflict gets far more coverage than many more deadly conflicts… Myanmar… Yemen… Syria”. And tell me: how do these conflict affect your life instead? You don’t want us to worry about the Palestinian genocide, but you want us to worry more about Myanmar. Uhm, it sounds a little suspicious... You know, the Palestinian genocide is our genocide because WE are selling weapons and supporting Israel. We are the allies of Israel. Without American and European support Israel could not even survive. We are involved in it.
7) “In terms of coverage, Palestinian suffering gets more coverage than Jewish suffering”. Well, if the Israelis did not apply a retaliation ratio 30:1 or so, perhaps the press coverage of Palestinian suffering would not be 30 times greater than coverage of Jewish suffering. I mean, how many casualties are there in a Yemeni missile bombing or in a Palestinian rocket attack, and how many are there in a typical Israeli bombing?
Alessandro:
1. He already told you how they would have reported the bombing of Gaza. They would have been in awe that Israel was able to retaliate to the barbaric slaughter and kidnapping for ransom/torture/raping/killing of innocent Israelis so overwhelmingly as they did in 1967 and 1973. Why the confusion?
2. I don't think so. The left is consistently negative on all the things I hold dear - freedom, democracy, capitalism, free-markets, while the right is not. Maybe I just don't trust the left to report rather than manipulate.
3. Actually, based on recent history of the media and facts, I don't appreciate the media interpreting anything for me. A perfect example is the election in 2016 when, immediately after it was apparent that Donald Trump won after a successful campaign that included direct communication with voters via social media, Christiane Amanpour declared "I can't believe it, he did an end run right around us". Yes, that is right sweetie, he bypassed your vile slurs against him in your traditional effort to twist the news to effect your desired result. You lost your campaign Christiane. So then they made sure to corrupt social media (or just management at tech giants) to shut down conservative voices. Yes, we well know how the left-leaning legacy media operate.
4. There is nothing required to say about the leftist, Marxist BBC.
5. It is not "none of your business. It is simple - show as much interest in and humanity for all people suffering such actions, not just absolute focus on Palestinians. Such selective outrage is obvious antisemitic bias.
6. Same answer as 5. above.
7. No one wins a war with "proportionality". After almost 7 decades of Palestinians refusing everything the they had asked for, excluding the destruction of Israel, it is time for an overwhelming force to be applied in the hopes of bringing the Palestinians to an agreement. Sort of like the current treatment of Iran in 2026. The difference between Iran and Gaza is that 85% of Gazans support the terrorist Hamas while only 30% of Iran support the terrorist theocracy. The Persians want their country back and the US wants them to take it back.
Profound misunderstanding of this conflict and the role of journalism in perpetuating it.
Daniel. This reply proves your point. No mention of the Hamas massacre. No understanding of Hamas and its objectives. No knowledge of the history of the area nor the many wars and conflicts. Uses the word genocide without understanding its meaning. No knowledge of who funds Hamas and why…no regional knowledge. No understanding of how he came to be so completely misinformed.
I disagree with some of your conclusions Daniel…they are political and not good journalism but agree on the
The audience is an ever shrinking pool of hyper consumers. Writ large half of people in the English speaking world watch or read zero news content, about a third once a month to weekly, 10 percent daily. The rest many times a day. The media outlets want the wire to wire all day consumers that anxiously gobble up whatever is published-OJ coverage, 9-11, disasters.
“Journalists used to learn about the world by reporting on it. Today, they learn about the world at university, then go out and start writing about it. They think they know what is going on before they have done any reporting.” Love it. Absolutely spot-on.
The broken business model is just the modern delivery system; it is not the source. The media is acting as a mirror, irresponsibly profiting off an ancient prejudice that already exists in the public, while simultaneously driving and reinventing that same hatred for a new generation.
If you truly believe this bias is just a byproduct of "where journalists like to drink espresso" or a lack of classified ads, I strongly suggest you read the public submissions to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion currently underway in Australia. Thousands of testimonies detail the severe, lived reality of antisemitism across media, schools, and public spaces—proving that this is a deeply ingrained societal crisis, not just a 21st-century industry glitch.
To frame this purely as a structural newsroom issue is not just shallow; it is insulting to anyone who actually understands and experiences the reality of antisemitism.
The article is excellent, but the introduction feels a bit over-the-top again, and it actually puts me off sharing it even though the piece itself is a must-read. The hypey tone can come across as a little much, and it risks overshadowing the quality of the analysis. A more understated intro would make the work more accessible and easier to pass on.