After October 7th, I cancelled our subscriptions in print and on line to LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, NPR. My husband and I also checked what our universities we attended were doing with the protests. We wrote to them and got non answers. We told them no more contributions. At least, we could find our own news outlets looking for the truth. I started reading Future of Jewish first thing in the mornings, gratefully since Joshua lives in Israel and is a brilliant writer and reporter. We subscribed early to the Free Press which tells the truth. We like the editorials in the WSJ. I am not bragging, just but saying we in California can take a small stand to find out the truth. Thank you for today’s excellent analysis of the bias exhibited by the media.
Past and present but seemingly now more than ever, with the Palestine-Israel conflict there has been widespread partisanship via Internet and news commentary. The politics of polarization outside of Israel and even the Middle East, perhaps in part for its own sake, has gotten quite disturbing.
Within social media especially, the angry and thoughtless two-dimensional views are especially amplified, including the majority posted by non-Jews and non-Palestinians.
It arouses a spectator-sport effect or mentality, with many contemptible trolls residing well outside the region yet actively supporting the ‘side’ [via politicized commentary posts] that they hate less. I anticipate many actually keep track of the bloody match by checking the day’s-end death-toll score, however extremely lopsided those numbers.
Additionally concerning about all of the highly publicized two-way partisan exchanges of fury is: what will young non-Israeli Jewish, and Palestinian, children living abroad think and feel if/when they hear such misdirected vile hatred towards their fundamental identity? Scary is the real possibility that such public outpour of blind hatred may lead some young children to feel misplaced shame in their heritage.
Sadly this includes the Israeli media which is really having a hard time because they hate Bibi but begrudgingly have to report that the country by a large margin supports finishing Hamas even defying the Americans to do so. Read the editorials to see where the Israeli press stands.....with Biden not with Israel
"Mind you, there are only two ways for a journalist to be in Gaza: by being imbedded with an IDF unit, or by being a member of Hamas, under the terror group’s Orwellian supervision. Thus, the one place very few Gaza war stories are coming from is Gaza." - it strikes me that if these really are the only 2 possible ways to report directly from Gaza then people may reasonably conclude that (a) any reporter working with Hamas will only have been allowed to see things Hamas let them see (b) any reporter embedded with an IDF unit will only have been allowed to see things the IDF let them see.
The consequences are that (1) those who distrust the IDF will discount the stories from embedded reporters and those who distrust Hamas will discount stories from the reporters under their supervision (2) journalists will be unable to report independently on e.g. the experiences of the ordinary residents of Gaza because they're either entering Gaza with the IDF or under the control of Hamas, and any access to the residents will be in one of those 2 contexts and this will inevitably colour their interactions with the population. I guess this or something like it would be true of many active warzones though.
“Outrage on both sides.” That’s a very astute analysis. Thank you.
About seven years ago I switched off my tv and stashed it in the cupboard. I could no longer tolerate the way it screamed at me as if I was an imbecile.
I stopped referring to the mainstream media except to view their headlines. It’s a means to stay in touch with what particular lies they are telling today.
Some people feel that a self-compromised or corrupt news media is better than no news media at all. I definitely do not.
As one who has consumed the news regularly since 1987, I’d say the field of journalism has problematically become overly corporatized thus more readily externally manipulated and compromised.
I respect foreign correspondents — and especially respect/admire those covering active war zones. Still, I feel that it's increasingly a-buck-and-a-byline ‘journalism’ in this world — motivated more by a paycheck and publication — rather than a genuine strive to challenge the powers-that-be: To truly comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable in an increasingly unjust global existence.
Mainstream journalism’s traditional function may be quietly changing. The adage-description of journalism’s fundamental function can remain the same, but revision of terminological representation is definitely in order. While it remains “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” there may be an alteration to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
In Canada, for example, the new “afflicted” likely means news-media comfort for a very profitable fossil-fuel-producing corporation ‘needing’ more taxpayer-funded subsidies, not to mention our convenient complacency as it multiplies many-fold its environmental threats and damage for the sake of even greater profit.
And an “afflicted” of our contemporary news-media times needing comforting may be an owner of a multi-million-dollar home that’s worth too much thus taxed higher, and not yet wanting to sell it he/she therefore desires tax respite.
Or, the new “afflicted” requiring news-media comforting may be Israel’s military when in the past it may have rightly been the Palestinians, as the latter resist having their ancestral lands gradually annexed and being cleansed from it. [David versus Goliath.] …
On the matter of public expression, also troubling is that mainstream news-outlet websites, including The Washington Post’s, are increasingly converting to pay-to-say formats, where the reader is allowed to consume the article without charge but must buy a subscription in order to comment on the article.
Meantime, there still are reporters and editors who will reply to accusations of subjective journalism with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’ Whatever the news media may be, they're not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they but a reflection of the community in which they circulate.
I agree with you! The media are corrupt. They filter the news that they report about Gaza. The effect is they twist reality entirely. You simply can not get reliable information from mainstream media.
I must disagree with you, at least when it comes to Canadian mainstream corporate news-media. Their corruption when covering the Palestine-Israel conflict — present and past, but seemingly now more than ever — is to me almost unprecedented. Most have lost so much of their independence and humanity.
They're well aware what readership butters most, if not all, of their bread and accordingly go in that self-compromised editorial direction.
I feel that genuine journalists with integrity would tender their resignations and publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s corrupt media product, be it from the Right or Left.
The most journalistically compromised news-media I've read is Canada’s National Post newspaper. You would really have to read it to believe it. It epitomizes an extreme example of an echo chamber promoting unconditional support for the state of Israel, including its very-long-practiced cruelty towards the Palestinian people. And I mean unconditional support. It's eerily mind-blowing how far downhill it has all gone.
More progressive outlets like Canada's other national newspaper, The Globe and Mail — progressive in regards to essentially following “woke” ideology — can be more deceitful and/or apologist in their pro-Israel coverage and especially op/ed writing since the 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel. By deceitful, I mean somewhat like knowingly placing a lie in between two truths.
After October 7th, I cancelled our subscriptions in print and on line to LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, NPR. My husband and I also checked what our universities we attended were doing with the protests. We wrote to them and got non answers. We told them no more contributions. At least, we could find our own news outlets looking for the truth. I started reading Future of Jewish first thing in the mornings, gratefully since Joshua lives in Israel and is a brilliant writer and reporter. We subscribed early to the Free Press which tells the truth. We like the editorials in the WSJ. I am not bragging, just but saying we in California can take a small stand to find out the truth. Thank you for today’s excellent analysis of the bias exhibited by the media.
Past and present but seemingly now more than ever, with the Palestine-Israel conflict there has been widespread partisanship via Internet and news commentary. The politics of polarization outside of Israel and even the Middle East, perhaps in part for its own sake, has gotten quite disturbing.
Within social media especially, the angry and thoughtless two-dimensional views are especially amplified, including the majority posted by non-Jews and non-Palestinians.
It arouses a spectator-sport effect or mentality, with many contemptible trolls residing well outside the region yet actively supporting the ‘side’ [via politicized commentary posts] that they hate less. I anticipate many actually keep track of the bloody match by checking the day’s-end death-toll score, however extremely lopsided those numbers.
Additionally concerning about all of the highly publicized two-way partisan exchanges of fury is: what will young non-Israeli Jewish, and Palestinian, children living abroad think and feel if/when they hear such misdirected vile hatred towards their fundamental identity? Scary is the real possibility that such public outpour of blind hatred may lead some young children to feel misplaced shame in their heritage.
Sadly this includes the Israeli media which is really having a hard time because they hate Bibi but begrudgingly have to report that the country by a large margin supports finishing Hamas even defying the Americans to do so. Read the editorials to see where the Israeli press stands.....with Biden not with Israel
I never watch mainstream news only CBN, Israeli, IDF, Stand with Us, "Tousi" etc..these are reliable sources!
You can get far better and more objective news about the Gaza war from sources that are not part of the mainstream media such as JNS.
"Mind you, there are only two ways for a journalist to be in Gaza: by being imbedded with an IDF unit, or by being a member of Hamas, under the terror group’s Orwellian supervision. Thus, the one place very few Gaza war stories are coming from is Gaza." - it strikes me that if these really are the only 2 possible ways to report directly from Gaza then people may reasonably conclude that (a) any reporter working with Hamas will only have been allowed to see things Hamas let them see (b) any reporter embedded with an IDF unit will only have been allowed to see things the IDF let them see.
The consequences are that (1) those who distrust the IDF will discount the stories from embedded reporters and those who distrust Hamas will discount stories from the reporters under their supervision (2) journalists will be unable to report independently on e.g. the experiences of the ordinary residents of Gaza because they're either entering Gaza with the IDF or under the control of Hamas, and any access to the residents will be in one of those 2 contexts and this will inevitably colour their interactions with the population. I guess this or something like it would be true of many active warzones though.
“Outrage on both sides.” That’s a very astute analysis. Thank you.
About seven years ago I switched off my tv and stashed it in the cupboard. I could no longer tolerate the way it screamed at me as if I was an imbecile.
I stopped referring to the mainstream media except to view their headlines. It’s a means to stay in touch with what particular lies they are telling today.
Some people feel that a self-compromised or corrupt news media is better than no news media at all. I definitely do not.
As one who has consumed the news regularly since 1987, I’d say the field of journalism has problematically become overly corporatized thus more readily externally manipulated and compromised.
I respect foreign correspondents — and especially respect/admire those covering active war zones. Still, I feel that it's increasingly a-buck-and-a-byline ‘journalism’ in this world — motivated more by a paycheck and publication — rather than a genuine strive to challenge the powers-that-be: To truly comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable in an increasingly unjust global existence.
Mainstream journalism’s traditional function may be quietly changing. The adage-description of journalism’s fundamental function can remain the same, but revision of terminological representation is definitely in order. While it remains “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” there may be an alteration to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
In Canada, for example, the new “afflicted” likely means news-media comfort for a very profitable fossil-fuel-producing corporation ‘needing’ more taxpayer-funded subsidies, not to mention our convenient complacency as it multiplies many-fold its environmental threats and damage for the sake of even greater profit.
And an “afflicted” of our contemporary news-media times needing comforting may be an owner of a multi-million-dollar home that’s worth too much thus taxed higher, and not yet wanting to sell it he/she therefore desires tax respite.
Or, the new “afflicted” requiring news-media comforting may be Israel’s military when in the past it may have rightly been the Palestinians, as the latter resist having their ancestral lands gradually annexed and being cleansed from it. [David versus Goliath.] …
On the matter of public expression, also troubling is that mainstream news-outlet websites, including The Washington Post’s, are increasingly converting to pay-to-say formats, where the reader is allowed to consume the article without charge but must buy a subscription in order to comment on the article.
Meantime, there still are reporters and editors who will reply to accusations of subjective journalism with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’ Whatever the news media may be, they're not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they but a reflection of the community in which they circulate.
I agree with you! The media are corrupt. They filter the news that they report about Gaza. The effect is they twist reality entirely. You simply can not get reliable information from mainstream media.
Seems like more than a few journalists on the Palestine beat double as HamA$$ operatives too. Oh how lovely.
The results are evident in the collapse of the Washington Post and a testament to the decency and common sense of the American people
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/magazine-life-arts/3039704/the-self-immolation-of-the-washington-post/
No juice no nuice
I must disagree with you, at least when it comes to Canadian mainstream corporate news-media. Their corruption when covering the Palestine-Israel conflict — present and past, but seemingly now more than ever — is to me almost unprecedented. Most have lost so much of their independence and humanity.
They're well aware what readership butters most, if not all, of their bread and accordingly go in that self-compromised editorial direction.
I feel that genuine journalists with integrity would tender their resignations and publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s corrupt media product, be it from the Right or Left.
The most journalistically compromised news-media I've read is Canada’s National Post newspaper. You would really have to read it to believe it. It epitomizes an extreme example of an echo chamber promoting unconditional support for the state of Israel, including its very-long-practiced cruelty towards the Palestinian people. And I mean unconditional support. It's eerily mind-blowing how far downhill it has all gone.
More progressive outlets like Canada's other national newspaper, The Globe and Mail — progressive in regards to essentially following “woke” ideology — can be more deceitful and/or apologist in their pro-Israel coverage and especially op/ed writing since the 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel. By deceitful, I mean somewhat like knowingly placing a lie in between two truths.