Critical thought when consuming media is crucial in our generation. Information washes over us from every direction and we feel the need to be updated at all times, so it is important to consider and adopt some rules.
A. First, that there is no such thing as a person who completely abstains from media consumption. Even for those who tell themselves that they don't watch the news, the content eventually reaches them - whether at work, in family circles or from friends and neighbors. For example, is there anyone here who didn't hear about the hostage deal? Even those who "don't read the news" knew.
So-called abstinence from media consumption does not really enable anyone to remain neutral or 'clean of bias.
B. There is no such thing as an "objective journalist" and there is no such thing as "objective journalism". Every journalist has an agenda and a worldview that he wants to promote, and it is in accordance with this worldview that he frames discourse and interprets reality. There really is no "objective news".
The title, the picture and the interviewees will all be aligned with the reporter's perspective. We live in a world of bias, so we should free ourselves from the childish notion that there are journalists who report objectively, with no bias. There are no such reporters.
There are also those who read newspapers contrary to their world view in order to "develop critical thinking. They will subscribe to left-wing newspapers in order to feel that they are "objective". However, experience shows that they ultimately adopt the world view of that newspaper. I have already written that those who want to challenge the status quo should simply take to stating the obvious and to speak of nationalistic and Jewish values; this is incredibly innovative in postmodern culture.
C. These rules apply all over the world, but in Israel the situation is more serious in terms of the media. Even though we are a Western-democratic country - the absolute majority of the media in the country serves leftist interests. These include the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation and the official IDF radio station (Galei Zahal), outlets that the public pays for with tax money and that are supposed to represent all citizens.
The fact that almost no journalists bothered to inform the public about the freed murderers is unprecedented in its wanton carelessness and a moral and journalistic crime.
This is exactly what happened before and during the release of the kidnapped/captive (by the way, who decides on the framing of this phrase?) Gilad Shalit.
The entire body of Israeli media echoed a single campaign: "Bring Back Everyone’s Child”. At what price? Who cares, the important thing is that Gilad will return safely.
For those who may have forgotten, in the Shalit deal, the mastermind of the Simchat Torah massacre, the arch-terrorist Yahya Sinwar was released. He was responsible for the brutal murder and kidnapping of hundreds of Jews. He created psychological warfare that sowed chaos in Israel.
After seeing what the State of Israel was willing to pay - due to mass pressure from irresponsible media - for one kidnapped soldier, he realized that what he had to do to defeat Israel was to kidnap as many citizens as possible. Then to put out videos of them in captivity calling for help, fueling media coverage and public protests.
Sinwar studied the psychology of the Israeli public, and above all, he knew that we had a media that would cooperate and do anything, absolutely anything, to return the hostages at horrific prices.
He also realized that our media and press exist in a hermetically closed bubble, with a collective mindset. Anyone who dares to express an unpopular opinion will be ostracized and banned, will no longer belong to the clique and will be cut off from the elite. No one will follow up his articles.
But if he encourages the deal - they will follow him, flatter him, and invite him to prestigious conferences. Every journalist's dream. Thus a unified opinion was formed with almost no dissenters. And if someone opposes, the media party makes sure to intercept him and delegitimize him.
D. Have you asked yourself how the tank crewman Gilad Shalit suddenly became "Everyone’s Child", while the soldier Elor Azaria was not?
A media campaign against the elimination of terrorists also took place in the Elor Azaria incident. Elor perhaps should have been sentenced with military sanctions, but the legal systems and the media used him as a symbol to deter fighters, and to promote a concept of morality that would suit their policies.
By the way, the terrorist that Elor eliminated will not be released in any unjust deal. Think why.
Here’s another question: Why, upon leaving Lebanon, did the 'Four Mothers' movement arise with an aggressive media response, while with the call for the elimination of Hamas and total victory, there was no similar media campaign?
Are the fighters in Gaza and Lebanon, who risk their lives for the safety of all, not "our children"?
Due to the sensitivity of the days we are in, I will leave analysis of the media messages in this hostage deal for another time.
H. Unlike the release of Gilad Shalit, the media’s conduct preceding the Gaza hostage deal was far graver. Not only because it led to an even more irresponsible deal, but because those in the media who promoted the slogan "a deal at any cost", subsequently decided to report which murderers were going to be released and what damage they were going to cause - only then, right after the deal was signed.
All while blaming the Prime Minister and members of government, of course.
That is to say, on the one hand, they promoted this deal, and now, to clean their hands of the blood of the future murdered, God forbid, because of the deal - they immediately made sure to report (“objectively”, of course) the damage that would be caused.
This is wickedness on a new scale. They will do everything to overthrow the government (completely unbiased, of course) and any and all means are kosher.
I. There have been no lessons learned from the campaign to release Shalit in exchange for Sinwar. If anything, certain lessons were reinforced - the “Media Party” understood its power and the kind of manipulation it can exert on the public.
Not a single journalist apologized or took responsibility after the massacre, for his part in the incident. Most of them took an active part in the current deal as well. And of course they will not take any responsibility for the next massacre, God forbid.
After all, they were only being "objective".
G. Unfortunately, there is (almost) no real journalism in Israel. Rather, the media is acting as a political party, with enormous power and influence. On the other hand, there is no such thing as "abstaining from media consumption", as we are ultimately exposed to it in one way or another. That is why we recommend finding your news principally through social networks.
For instance, following journalists on Twitter (X), choosing those whose worldview reflects your values. In this way you will be exposed to writers and the reactions of well-known activists, who have developed critical thinking.
Pay attention to the worldview of the reporters you listen to, and check - does it match your values? Then, consume information freely, with true freedom, without cultural shaping of your consciousness, and without taking part in campaigns against your will.
This was written by Itai Asman for Path Pavers and reprinted here with Path Pavers permission.
To read the article on the Path Pavers website:
https://www.solelim-derech.co.il/english/1582/
To join the group:
https://chat.whatsapp.com/LD5QhFlalkRDTbC3Y49QAt
0 Comments