Left-wing media want the Islamic dictatorship to win.

This is not reporting. It’s not journalism. It’s not news. It’s political and ideological spin. And it’s eroding the very freedoms that give these outlets the right to free press in the first place.

Israel doesn’t attack “Iran’s infrastructure.” It’s attacking the Iranian regime. (illustration by Future of Jewish)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay by Vanessa Berg, who writes about Judaism and Israel.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Last week, ABC News published a report that quickly went viral, warning Americans that the FBI had alerted law enforcement agencies about the possibility of an Iranian drone attack on California.

The story instilled fear across the state, but there was a catch: The report was based on a single, unverified tip. Context, verification, and perspective were absent. Fear was served first; facts came later, if at all.

For days, CNN pushed the narrative that the man who attacked a Jewish school and synagogue in Michigan last week was motivated by grief after “his family was killed in an Israeli airstrike” in Lebanon. Omitted from coverage: The relative reportedly killed was a commander for Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, CNN’s Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and London Bureau Chief were photographed celebrating the Islamic Revolution at Iran’s embassy in the U.K., just days after the regime massacred tens of thousands of protesters across more than 400 cities. Why were senior representatives of a major Western news organization attending a party for a regime whose decades-long trademarks include “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”?

CNN foreign correspondent Frederik Pleitgen often highlights his rare access to Tehran, presenting himself as delivering unique insight from inside the Islamic Republic. Yet access in authoritarian states is never neutral. Pleitgen reported from Iran just weeks after a brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters, without meaningfully challenging Iranian officials about their crimes.

Days after joint U.S.–Israeli strikes initially hit Iranian military infrastructure, Tehran allowed him back inside — even as the regime imposed a sweeping domestic information blackout. This is not transparency; it is stagecraft. The Islamic Republic consistently ranks among the worst countries in the world for press freedom, and foreign journalists have long paid the price for independent reporting. When a regime decides which cameras are allowed and which questions are permitted, the result is not journalism; it is propaganda.

The New York Times has repeatedly followed the same pattern. Following Israel’s assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, it ran a photo of thousands of Iranians mourning when, in reality, the vast majority of Iranians despise Khamenei and his regime. There were photos of Iranians celebrating Khamenei’s death as well, but the New York Times chose the image that reinforced a flattering narrative about a regime leader who just weeks ago oversaw the mass murder of thousands of protestors in Iran’s streets.

When a synagogue was attacked recently, the New York Times’ coverage highlighted the building’s founding date. When a Hezbollah-affiliated attacker strikes, he was described as a quiet restaurant worker. When an ISIS-inspired terrorist threw a bomb into a crowd, headlines highlighted the sneakers he sold as a child. The framing is deliberate: Humanize the aggressor, sanitize the ideology, and delegitimize the victims.

The consequences of these distortions are real. Over the weekend, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr warned that U.S. broadcasters spreading misleading stories could face license revocation, calling out “hoaxes and news distortions — also known as fake news.” And as Dr. Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed, noted: “Misleading media statements will not cover up this reality.”¹

The real stories about this war against the Islamic Republic of Iran are geopolitical, religious, economic, and humanitarian.

The Left-wing media wants people to think that Israel is isolated when, in reality, the Islamic Republic is the country most isolated in the Middle East, and nearly all of the region wants this regime gone.

Decades ago, the Arabs and others in the Middle East and North Africa instinctively banded together against Israel at all costs. Today, they want integration with Israel because they want stability and prosperity for the region, and all serious Middle Eastern actors acknowledge the Abraham Accords are imperative to the region’s success. But the Left-wing media isn’t interested in this angle, because it means everything they’ve been “reporting” and how they’ve been “reporting” it is bogus.

They slander and libel Israel at every opportunity, apologize for or overlook the barbaric Islamic Republic of Iran, and then naively wonder why “peace in the Middle East” is so elusive. Since October 7th, Left-wing outlets focused obsessively on Israel’s alleged “war crimes” in Gaza and Lebanon. Today, the same outlets remain largely silent about Iranian attacks on Israeli civilians — including cluster bombs, a clear war crime.

And when it comes to “the Palestinians,” Left-wing media are incessantly preoccupied with “human rights” — but what about human rights for Iranians? Thousands of them were murdered in the streets in January for protesting. Thousands more have been jailed, tortured, disappeared, and killed simply for demanding democratic freedoms under the Islamic Republic, one of modern history’s most oppressive regimes.

This is not reporting. It’s not journalism. It’s not news. It’s political and ideological spin. Once upon a time, real journalists took pride in fact-finding. Today’s journalists (if we can even call them that) indulge in fact-confirming, as in facts that confirm their sociopolitical beliefs for broadcast across CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, and other Left-wing media outlets.

And so we are left with a mainstream media that, in large part, is increasingly antisemitic and simultaneously consumed by fear of so-called “Islamophobia” — when the reality is the opposite. All evidence points to the urgent need to fear the rise of antisemitism, not “Islamophobia.” It is not Jews plotting to take over the world, but Islamists who harbor such ambitions. It is not Israel destabilizing the Middle East, but the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is not “Islamophobia” that signals the fragility of a society, but antisemitism — the hatred that has historically presaged the collapse of countries and civilizations.

This is not just some Westerner’s opinion. Look at the clear difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates: The former cloaks itself in Islamism, while the latter are modernizing to create a more stable region and world.

Moderate Arabs fear Islamists because they know them firsthand. There is a reason the Muslim Brotherhood is expelled from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Syria, and Jordan. There is a reason Al Jazeera has been banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and even the West Bank in parts governed by the Palestinian Authority.

Yet the Left-wing media largely ignores these realities. Ideology, not facts, drives coverage. Aggression from the Islamic Republic is minimized, normalized, or reframed as defensive, while Israel is endlessly scrutinized, moralized, and delegitimized. This is not even “activist journalism” as some describe it. It is not journalism at all. It is pure propaganda.

Ironically, we are constantly warned about Russian propaganda, yet the very same outlets that caution us about it are actively shaping narratives that excuse, justify, or obscure Iranian propaganda — using the same tools of framing, selective fact-telling, and emotional manipulation. When ideology dictates coverage instead of evidence, the result is indistinguishable from the propaganda they claim to condemn.

I’m not suggesting that media outlets should automatically support this war, or any military action for that matter. Responsible journalism requires scrutiny, context, and a commitment to truth, even when the facts are inconvenient or politically uncomfortable. Criticism of policy, strategy, or mistakes is not only legitimate; it is essential.

What I am arguing is that there is a difference between critical reporting and ideological distortion. When outlets frame events through a predetermined lens — excusing Iran while condemning Israel regardless of the facts — they are no longer practicing journalism. They are shaping narratives to fit an agenda, not informing the public. Honest reporting doesn’t mean unthinking approval of military action; it means accurately presenting the causes, the actors, and the consequences of conflict without bending reality to ideology.

In other words, the media’s job is not to cheer or jeer on command. Its job is to illuminate reality. And when it fails to do so, it doesn’t merely misinform; it endangers the public’s ability to understand the world and make sound decisions based on truth.

So, what is someone to do who wants to know the truth?

First, I don’t let the international media dictate what I want to know about events in Israel and the Middle East. They shift their superficial focus to the region only when tempers flare and wars rage, but it is unfortunate to reduce Israel and the Middle East to a constant battleground. There is so much more to our country and this region than what international media promotes.

Hence why I defer to Israeli media: The Times of Israel (left), N12 (center-left, Hebrew media), Jerusalem Post (center), Ynet (center, Hebrew media), and Channel 14 (right). I consistently monitor all five outlets, including their websites and social media feeds, to observe how the same events are covered across the spectrum.

Interestingly, the vast majority of reporting is remarkably consistent, which tells me that, unlike much of the international press, Israeli journalists still take the profession seriously and uphold standards of accuracy, context, and integrity. Perhaps they understand better than others that what they report directly impacts their family, friends, and communities; after all, it is a tiny country.

Then I do something “revolutionary” in today’s media environment: I wait. I resist forming knee-jerk opinions. I avoid getting swept up in outrage, commentary, or public spats between officials. I let events unfold, then judge after the facts are clear, oftentimes weeks and even months later.

I’m reminded of June 1981, when Israel carried out a bold preemptive operation against Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, targeting the Osirak reactor near Baghdad in what became known as Operation Opera. Eight Israeli fighter jets flew over 600 miles to strike the facility, aiming to destroy what Israeli leaders saw as Baghdad’s fastest route to a nuclear weapon.

The immediate reaction was almost entirely negative. The United Nations Security Council condemned the attack unanimously with Resolution 487, calling it a violation of international law. Even Israel’s closest ally, the United States, expressed strong disapproval, temporarily halting certain military shipments.

Critics argued that Israel had acted aggressively, risking regional instability. Many Western governments insisted that Iraq’s nuclear program was peaceful and could be monitored through inspections. Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler at the time, publicly denied any intention of building nuclear weapons. From Israel’s perspective, however, delaying action risked a far greater threat: once operational, the reactor would be nearly impossible to destroy without triggering radioactive contamination, making a preventive strike politically and militarily unfeasible.

Looking back, the operation is widely reassessed. After the Gulf War, inspectors uncovered evidence that Iraq had pursued a far more extensive nuclear weapons program than previously known. Many experts now agree that destroying Osirak significantly delayed Baghdad’s nuclear ambitions. What was once condemned as reckless unilateralism has, in hindsight, become a frequently cited example of effective preventive action against a hostile state seeking catastrophic capabilities.

Today, Operation Opera stands as a precedent in debates over preemptive action against nuclear proliferation: a controversial decision at the time, now often remembered as a prescient move that likely prevented a far greater threat.

This contrast reveals a deeper truth about modern information: The public is too often fed spin masquerading as news, while genuine events unfold in real time, quietly, without the glare of propaganda. To understand the Middle East (or any conflict, for that matter) requires more than reacting to headlines. It demands discipline, perspective, and patience. It demands looking beyond ideology, beyond emotion, and beyond the narratives pushed by self-interested media.

---

1. “UAE’s Dr Gargash says Iran attacks on Gulf states highlight its ‘military failure and lack of morality’.” The National.