The October 7th war is destined, if Netanyahu’s government gets its way, to continue till the 2026 elections and even beyond. Continuing the war enables the government to canonize the atrocities of that day, without accepting its culpability for the immense failure, and use the crimes perpetrated by Hamas to justify the war crimes the IDF is carrying out in Gaza.

The public is buying their narrative.  What happened at the Nova Festival, the kibbutzim  and farming communities, in the towns of Ofakim and Shderot, in the roads and junctions, along with the testimonies captivity survivors telling of rapes, the physical and emotional abuse of the hostages, the starvation, the horrific prolonged existence in the tunnels,  constitute a “moral” basis to continue the killing and destruction even while the price it exacts is horrible sufferings inflicted on the hostages,  still in Gaza, and on their families awaiting their return. 

Regardless, the government wouldn’t have been able to establish the (so-called) justification for carrying on with the war without the assistance of the media. This assistance was provided not only by “talking heads” that appear on all channels, (not just channel 14,) who support the continuation of the war, but also the barrage of appearances by survivors and freed hostages in any possible program. And there is a reason for that - The motivation is to satisfy the masses and avoid antagonizing the consumers.

The promotion of the "rating idol” to top priority that dictates the content broadcast by the media, especially TV channels, did not start after October 7. The phrase “what Happens in the Occupied Territories stays in the Occupied Territories” was not born with the creation of the Netanyahu-Smortritz government but has guided the media for the last three decades at least.

The media, especially the mainstream channels, report on what unfolds in the territories from a “security point of view,” focusing on confrontations and attacks. On the other hand, there is rarely a word about the brutality of the army and the crimes of the settlers. The effect of the Occupation on the Palestinian population is also nowhere to be found. The Israelis have gotten used to reports of confrontations and violence in the Occupied Territories and have become indifferent. They now regard the events as if they are happening far away in another realm, behind the mountains of doom. On the rare occasion that the media does report, it almost always brings just the Israeli version, presented by the IDF spokesperson and the settlers, although experience proves that truth is not their guiding principle.  

The political center and right wing are having a hard time relating to a reality where the Palestinians have any rights. At the same time, the political elite, since the return of Netanyahu to power in his second term as well as during the “change” government rule, has been working to delegitimize journalists that are reporting on what is happening behind the Green Line. This causes the media, hungry for ratings, to provide selective coverage of events in the Occupied Territories.

The phrase “What happens in the Occupied Territories stays in the Occupied Territories” describes the fact that the mainstream media is silencing and hiding what is happening in Palestinian Occupied Territories. A massive gap exists between the Occupation effects on everyday reality of the Palestinians as well as all life within the state and the conscious awareness of the average Israeli.

The traditional news providers – TV, radio and newspapers – are not the sole source of information that media consumers receive. Much information consumption takes place via social networks, where algorithms filter the information according to the commercial interests of the companies that operate them. Traditional news providers (including those that have digital versions) have lost their supremacy. The new media allows every user to engage in so-called journalism. This is how “journalism of assertion" - meaning spread of unverified facts and false, i.e. “fake news: ("He said - we publish”)” - is the new journalistic formula. This standard has also spread to traditional media sources.

This leads to the question of whether the truth still matters. The reality is that “journalism of assertion" or “antenna journalism” dominate and deteriorate traditional journalistic systems. The public has gotten used to getting immediate information and thus the need to examine the information using journalistic parameters has been obliterated. Journalists wish to be the first to reach the new-media users, to elicit maximum comments and likes, and this leads them to abandon traditional and professional journalistic principles.  

This wish for favorable ratings, accompanied by economic need, causes media bodies to disregard journalistic values. Nowadays, next to the duty to report truthfully and fairly, there is also the duty of “balanced reporting.”  We can, unequivocally, say that balanced journalism, journalism of “for” and “against,” fails the main goal - reporting the truth. Media providers choose to not work hard to report the truth so they do not antagonize their consumers. Besides that, production costs of programs consisting of endless “for and against” arguments by “talking heads” sitting in the studio are relatively cheap and require much less resources than are required when conducting deep journalistic investigations. So therefore, the motto is:  “no need to push hard and be careful to not antagonize.” 

All this is happening just as there is exponential growth in available information of all kinds and sources.  This growth necessitates a greater need for authoritative news providers that provide reliable trustworthy information and help consumers organize and make sense of the Tsunami of information flooding the internet. Only professional skilled journalists that provide quality, fact-checked and credible content can maintain the professional standing of an information source above the noise.

The current era blurs the difference between fact and opinion. That said, we do not wish to discount journalism that transparently works to represent certain agendas. Such biased journalism has always existed and as long as there is transparency does not negate accepted journalistic principles. Basic conditions for biased journalism are the duty to report the truth (and check the validity of facts used in the arguments expressed,) decency (to seek response of all involved) and the duty to not hide relevant information.

Media providers, nowadays, are obliged to appease their readers with alluring content that does not antagonize, instead of confronting them with less convenient news on what is happening around them. The weakness of traditional journalism and its abandonment of professional standards is used by various groups that benefit from the neutering of the guard dogs. Populism (of those that won elections,) on its face, promises to carry out the supreme value of democracy, “Let the people rule.” But populism constitutes a danger to democracy whose first obligation is to defend basic rights. Populism heroes see real journalism, that is committed to its values, as their number one enemy. For that reason, for democracy to exist it is imperative that independent professional journalism exists as well.