Media bias against Israel
By Barbara Kay, CIJR Symposium, Toronto, November 16, 2014
It’s a pleasure to be here today, and in such distinguished
company. I’d like to begin my talk today with a joke that I used to
A man is walking down the street in Paris, when he sees a pit bull
attacking a little girl. He kills the dog and saves the child’s life.
Afterward, he is swarmed by reporters. They say, “Tell us your
name.” Your fellow Parisians will love you when they see
tomorrow’s headlines: “Hero saves girl from vicious dog.”
“But I’m not from Paris,” the man says.
“That’s okay,” says the journalist. All France will love you when
they see the headlines, “Hero saves girl from vicious dog.” “But
I’m not from France,” the man says.
“Oh well,” the reporter says, “All of Europe will love you when they
see the headline…” “But I’m not from Europe.”
“Well, where are you from?” they ask.
“I’m from Israel.”
The next day’s headlines read, “Israeli kills little girl’s dog.”
When it comes to Israel, reality makes life tough for satirists.
In October (2014), a terrorist drove his car into a crowd at a light-
rail station in Jerusalem, killing a three-month old baby, Chaya
Zisel Braun and a woman, Karen Yemima Muscara. The attacker
fled, the police in pursuit, and they killed him. The headline of an
Associated Press report? “Israeli police shoot man in East
Jerusalem.” Later the headline became: “Car slams into east
Jerusalem train station.” To appreciate the significance of this
editorial decision, consider the reaction if a New York Times
headline following last month’s terrorist attack on Canada’s
Parliament Hill had been, “Gun shoots bullets into monument.”
Only after social media protests forced AP’s hand did a
responsible headline emerge: “Palestinian kills baby at Jerusalem
Covering the same incident, Sky News ran a news ticker at the
bottom of the screen informing viewers that “Israeli police ‘say’ a
driver has rammed his car into pedestrians in East Jerusalem in
an ‘intentional’ attack causing several injuries.”2 The internal
quotes cast doubt on the reliability of the Israeli report. But
another bulletin (with no caveats) stated that “Israeli police have
clashed with Palestinians inside Jerusalem’s al-Aksa Mosque
compound after Jewish nationalists announced plans to visit the
site.”3 Causality is offered here, with no mention of the fact that
previously, rocks and Molotov cocktails had been thrown onto
Jews praying at the Wall. The real message: Jews are interlopers;
Jews disturb the peace.
That media bias against Israel exists is no longer a hypothesis to
be proved. No reasonable observer can fail to concede that the
media are disproportionately obsessed with Israel, or that Israel is
held to a higher moral standard than other nations in its behaviour
toward its avowed enemies.
There is a bias spectrum, but on the extreme end, the vitriol can
be astonishing, even in normally respectable publications.
A Sky News reporter compared the strikes on Gaza this summer
during Operation Protective Edge, in which the civilian dead
[1 May, Clifford D., “How the Jewish state is being demonized,” National Post, Oct 30, 2014.
numbered in the hundreds, to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.
Time magazine claimed Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians to steal
their internal organs, a blood libel of the most vile and brazen
The New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief claimed that stories
of Hamas intimidation of journalists were “nonsense,” even
though other NYT reporters have documented several examples
Cartoonists routinely depict Israel as Nazis with imagery that
consciously resurrects a long history of Christian blood libels, the
obscenities of Nazi-era Der Sturmer graphics, and the more
recent Big Lie of Holocaust inversion, with Palestinians as the
new Anne Frank and Israel the Hitler.5
Israel has fought many wars. Some, against massed forces in
which Israel was clearly the underdog, like the Six Day War, have
been absolutely necessary and supported both by Israelis and the
world. Others have involved Israel in conflicts with the casus belli
less well defined and the Israeli government, clumsier in its
communications with the outside world than it should have been,
producing bias that can’t be waved away as reflexive hatred of
Israel or anti-Semitism.
Operation Protective Edge provides a good background for
analysis of media bias because its casus belli is so unambiguous.
This was a war of necessity.6 The unprovoked, indiscriminately
aimed and pan-Israel rocket attacks from Hamas, which terrorized
all Israelis for weeks on end, and even briefly threatened to bring
Israel’s economy to a standstill with a rocket so close to Ben
[5 Kotek, Joel, “Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons,” http://jcpa.org/article/major-anti-semitic-
6 See Alan Dershowitz’s just-published e-book: Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War]
Gurion airport that it produced panicky flight boycotts amongst
airline companies, absolutely demanded a muscular response.
The discovery of the vast Gaza tunnels complex, with its stark
implications for human tragedy and national cataclysm, sobered
even the most ardent Palestinian sympathizers, foreign and
domestic. Iconic Israeli writer, Amos Oz, normally sympathetic to
Palestinian grievances, summed up the general mood in Israel in
an interview with an anti-Israel Deutsche Welle journalist7, with Oz
quite aggressively pre-empting questions with his own
interrogation, asking the interviewer:
Question 1: What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the
balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your
Question 2: What would you do if your neighbor across the street digs a tunnel from
his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home or in order to kidnap your
family?8 (He went on to describe Israel’s response “justified but excessive.)
Widespread anti-Israel media bias is a charge that anti-Zionists
tend to wave away as a conspiracy theory. But the accusation has
become untenable for any self-respecting observer. (Even Liberal
Jews are feeling the heat from their Facebook friends and they
are unhappy being on the defensive for a change.9)
The moral clarity around this war has also inspired several brilliant
and detailed proofs of media bias which, taken together, amount
to a damning indictment of the mainstream media.
Especially notable in this line is the meticulously detailed, long
analysis of New York Times bias against Israel by investigative
reporter Richard Behar in the August 21 issue of Forbes
Magazine.10 It’s very damning. The Times’ most important reporter
9 Podhoretz, John, “When Liberals feel silenced,” Commentary magazine, September 2014]
in Gaza for the past few years has used Yasser Arafat as his
profile photo on Facebook. Abeer Ayoub, a Palestinian resident of
Gaza and former Times reporter (until 2013) was boycotting all
Israeli products and posting hostile comments to Facebook.
Behar’s report, printed, is 42 pages long: No honest skeptic can
read it and deny extreme bias pervades not just the NYT, but
almost the entire mainstream media (with the BBC the most
flagrant offenders of the pack*).
Behar does have words of praise for the media of other countries,
including Canada, citing the Globe and Mail’s Patrick Martin and
the CBC’s Derek Stoffel for candour regarding Hamas’s use of
human shields, as well as the firing of rockets from schools,
demonstrable facts ignored by many media.
He also cites the oft-quoted 2009 testimony before the UN,
regarding Operation Cast Lead, of British officer Colonel Richard
Kemp, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq: “…the Israel Defence
Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat
zones than any army in the history of warfare.”11
Matti Friedman, for another outstanding example, a journalist and
author, who worked as a reporter and editor in the Jerusalem
bureau of Associated Press (AP) between 2006-1, wrote an
article for a recent edition of Tabletmag.com. Entitled “An insider’s
guide to the most important story on earth.” The article, which has
been widely distributed, explains how and why so many media
covering the Middle East are essentially telling their audiences
that Jews are the “worst people on earth.”
10 Behar, Richard, “The Media Intifada: Bad math, ugly truths about New York Times in Israel-
* For a comparable analysis of the BBC see Tom Gross, former Jerusalem correspondent for London’s Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News on the 2006 war with Hezbollah: tomgrossmedia.com/MediaMissiles.html.
11 Behar, p. 14
All the themes Friedman adduces: double standards, failure to
acknowledge Hamas intimidation, reliance on uncorroborated
“facts” provided by Hamas, Hamas censorship versus Israeli
openness, are replicated in other critiques.
Friedman begins by noting, as representative, a recent New
Yorker article summing up world events over the summer. The
article assigned one sentence each to the horrors of Nigeria and
Ukraine, four sentences to the abominations of Islamic State, and
the rest – 30 sentences – to Israel and Gaza. But Friedman isn’t
interested in bashing the New Yorker or any other publication. He
has a bigger story to tell. And “story” is the key word, because the
central Israel narrative shows little variation in mainstream media.
To measure the importance of a story to a news organization,
Friedman writes, look at the staffing. During his tenure at AP (no
different from other large bureaus), there were 40 staffers
covering Israel and the Palestinian territories, more than in China,
Russia, India, “Arab Spring” countries and all 50 sub-Saharan
African countries combined.
Exactly one stringer covered Syria before the Syrian civil war,
even though more lives have been lost in Syrian violence in the
last three years than in Israel-Arab conflicts for the last century.
There were 1500 journalists in Israel this summer. How many
were covering Pakistan’s war against North Waziristan terrorists
in the same time period with equivalent civilian deaths and
displacement of 500,000 refugees?12 Probably fewer than five.
Friedman tells us that AP staffers quickly learned the rules
governing what got published. Corruption in the Palestinian
Authority, which Friedman wanted to cover? The bureau chief told
him that was “not the story.” But Israeli corruption was covered
thoroughly. During one seven-week period in November and
[12 Stephens, Bret, “Palestine and Double Standards,” Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2014]
December of 2011, Friedman tallied 27 articles about the various
moral political, cultural and social failings of Israeli society, more
than all the stories critical of Palestinian society published in the
previous three years.
The Hamas charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction, was never
mentioned in print in all the time Friedman worked for AP.
When Israel imposed censorship, staffers could say so, but not
when Hamas imposed censorship. That is because, Friedman
writes, AP feared Hamas intimidation and acted accordingly.
Friedman writes that as an editor on the AP news desk, because
of a threat to a reporter, “I personally erased a key detail – that
Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted
as civilians in the death toll.” (Russia Today’s correspondent Harry
Fear was reportedly asked to leave Gaza after tweeting that Al-Waifa was
“the hospital with human shields”.13)
Most reporters in Gaza, he says, “believe their job is to document
violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians. That is the
essence of the Israel story.” The few journalists who documented
Hamas rocket launches this summer were not large bureau
staffers, but mostly “scrappy, peripheral and newly arrived players
– a Finn, an Indian crew, a few others. These poor souls didn’t get
Friedman wants us to understand the more important story most
media shrink from covering. The narrative is usually framed as a
David and Goliath story in which the Palestinians are the little
David with his slingshot and Israel is the Goliath, which is the way
– reversed – Israel was once perceived vis à vis the entire Arab
world. The real conflict remains “Jewish-Arab” or even “Jewish-
Muslim”- six million versus a billion, with Israel the weaker party –
and it began long before Israel was a state. Hamas, Hezbollah,
Islamic State, the Taliban: they’re all one.
In Friedman’s metaphor, Israel is just a small village on the slope
of a volcano, and the lava pouring down is radical Islam. Israel’s
sins are picayune compared to those of Islamists, but confronting
reality is hard; many in the West, Friedman says, prefer “the old
comfort of parsing the moral failures of Jews, and the feeling of
superiority this brings them.”
For the bigger picture on how we got to this pass, it is worth
revisiting American-Israeli press-war veteran Ze’ev Chafets 1985
book, Double Vision: How the Press Distorts America’s View of
the Middle East.
Chafets was the press officer for the Israeli government and
liaised between the government and the international press, so he
had a close-up and intimate view of what went on in a macro and
a micro way. He explains how media bias against Israel became
entrenched, and identifies the themes that keep cropping in all the
critiques we read today.
The first theme is that of media bans, news blackouts and
physical intimidation. The western press do not protest when they
are shut out by Arab states, even though they complained bitterly,
for example, when the U.S. imposed a ban on reportage in
Grenada during the first few days of its 1983 invasion.
Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were dubbed “the arc of silence” by
Chafets in 1985, because they prohibited foreign correspondents
from living on their territories. They still forbid it, and who would
want to live there even if they didn’t? Even back then, the Assad
government was murdering Lebanese, American and German
journalists – killings, according to Chafets, that were covered up
in the American press. Ironically, the murderers of Islamic State
today aren’t allowing for any cover-ups; their gruesome public
beheadings ensure their murders are well covered.
While the Arab world is virtually closed to the media, Israel is
absurdly open. Hundreds of reporters camp out in comfortable
Israel. With its contentious society, a free press, much of which is
sharply critical of Israel and Zionism, intellectual elites who lean
heavily to the left and are well-connected internationally, these
foreign reporters think they are tapping into the heart of Israeli
opinion and character, when in fact they are getting a very
skewed version of both.
Language plays a huge part. Israeli political and intellectual elites
speak English and talk to media people with candour, but none of
these same media people speak any Middle-Eastern languages.
They are therefore heavily dependent on translators and “fixers”
to facilitate their information-gathering on the Arab side of the
Dealing with the Israeli army or government press officer is
frequently cumbersome and annoying. But fixers are informal and
personal. There are no rules and regulations. Friendships spring
up. The reporter may be taken to the fixer’s home, treated
graciously, meet friends who tell their sad stories. He doesn’t
meet Israelis who have suffered from terrorism in the same
informal way, though.14 If they did, they would hear some equally
sad stories to at least balance the emotive element.
Media people’s fixers often give jounalists a laundered version of
what is being said in Arabic, which they naively accept without
further interrogation – not that much further interrogation is
possible under the circumstances – and yet they do not make that
clear in their reportage. They often do not say in their reports what
[14 Halkin, Hillel, “When Israel gets spun,” National Post, February 17, 2006]
they are professionally bound to say, “This information could not
be corroborated by independent sources.”
Information given out on the Arab side is so unreliable that on
their own internal affairs, Palestinians prefer intel from Israel. In
one ludicrous story, which went entirely unreported, a Ha’Aretz
reporter detailed a planned coup by Hamas on Fatah leader
Mahmoud Abbas, which was discovered by Shin Bet in early
August, and passed on to Abbas. When scolded by Hamas leader
Khaled Meshal for accepting Israel information rather than his
own denials, Abbas replied, “I believe Israel’s reports.”15
Polls in Israel had 95% of Israelis supporting the war, in the US,
42%. Of the 42%, support was highest in older demographics.
Only 25% of those under 30 supported the war, though, and that
is extremely worrying. Amongst others, two factors help to
explain the disparity: left-wing, harshly anti-Zionist domination of
university discourse and politics; and the often intellectually
irresponsible blogosphere, to which younger people pay
One sees a great deal more passion and unrestrained language
on blogs than one does in the mainstream press. As a result,
many young people are exposed to a double whammy of anti-
Israel rhetoric; and since, unlike our generation, they have grown
up in a world in which anti-Semitism is the norm in many parts of
the world, consider outrageous accusations against Israel –
Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is like the Nazis treatment of
Jews, Israel is an apartheid nation, Israel has no right to exist –
both valid and a reflection of historical norms. Many troubled pro-
Israel students on campus attest that it is “cool” to be anti-Israel.16
[15 Michaels, Paul, “Media coverage of internal Palestinian affairs inadequate,” Canadian Jewish News, September 18, 2014.
As Jerusalem’s Shalem College president Martin Kramer
writes, one finds in universities “habituation to a language of
Throw in a huge dollop of both latent and overt anti-Semitism in
Europe, fever-pitched anti-Semitism throughout the entire Muslim
world, and enhanced communication tools – the Internet,
dedicated Islamism-laundering TV stations, an increasingly Israel-
hostile United Nations – and we end up with entire western
countries in which it is difficult to find a single media outlet
governed by real objectivity on Israel, let alone sympathy.
When did media sympathy for Israel begin to turn to media bias
The turning point was 1973. The June, 1967 Six-Day war – a just
war par excellence – had dazzled the world, when tiny Israel
triumphed over the massed armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and
Iraq. The extraordinary achievement changed the world’s
perception of Israel, from a defensive, vulnerable nation to a
military world power.
The media glow was short-lived. There are many interlocking
reasons for the turn against Israel. But the precipitating cause
was the 1973 oil crisis. When the Egyptians and the Syrians
invaded Israel in 1973 – the Yom Kippur War – the Arabs
imposed an oil embargo on the West. It was a stunning economic
and psychological blow (many of us remember the blocks-long
queues at gas stations and the “sold out” signs that precipitated
panic in American commuters). This state of fear lasted a decade,
and fomented a watershed in media attention towards the Middle
[17 Kramer, Martin, “Gaza = Auschwitz,” mosaicmagazine.com, August, 2014]
Compounding the oil crisis was the fall of the Shah of the Iran
and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. These events
were followed with breath drawn for their effects on the oil trade,
rather than for the clear indication they were of the growing global
Here was a crisis in flagrant ascendancy that would soon dwarf
our concerns about Saudi oil. But we were quite blind to the
implications then, because we had no reportage boots on the
ground, and listened instead to the armchair academic “experts”
who had theories, with no special knowledge of what was actually
going on, but made the rounds of the talk shows, expounding as
though they did.
Since then, key players in the battle for hearts and minds –
politicians, academics and journalists – have for their own
reasons chosen to distort the Arab-Israeli conflict.
When Jimmy Carter came to power in 1977, he believed that
stability in the Middel East depended on a resolution of the West
Bank problem, and brought all his presidential weight to bear on
it. The media’s continuing obsession with the settlements and the
“peace process” as the cure-all for wider Muslim woes was partly
the trickledown effect of that conviction.
And the same misguided beat goes on. Leaping ahead a few
decades, Obama, with far more historical evidence to
demonstrate what it was a mistake fixation on settlements was,
doggedly stands by the same false belief.
Incredibly, as the entire Arab world is being consumed by jihadist
conflagration, Secretary of State John Kerry recently had the
temerity to blame Israel for the rise of Islamic State, remarking to
Muslim guests at a State Department dinner celebrating the Eid
al-Adha holiday that in his discussions with Arabs, “there wasn’t a
leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me
spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and
the Palestinians because it was a cause of recruitment and of
street anger and agitation that they felt.”
Well, they would, wouldn’t they. If he’d asked them their views of
9/11, they might also have opined that Mossad was behind that.
For a U.S. president (we must assume these are Obama’s views
as well) to publicly imply that an entire region is ablaze, and mass
slaughters of civilians, notably Christians, are colouring the Arab
world a lurid red because of the plight of the Palestinians speaks
either to a boundless naiveté that is unseemly in someone of such
high office, or a reflexive “blame the Jew” impulse, even more
unseemly, that neither Obama and Kerry can control.18
Returning to the story of oil and its fallout in other parts of the
world: Politicians, especially in European countries, simply made
a pact with the devil. They threw their support behind the Arab
countries, which meant abandoning Israel. They did it for oil, out
of former-empire guilt, and because their own growing Muslim
populations were beginning to exert pressures they could not
ignore. The details of Europe’s pusillanimous surrender can be
found in Bat Ye’or’s magisterial treatment of the subject in her
2005 book, Eurabia.19
As for intellectuals, Israel lost their sympathy the minute it
stopped being an underdog and became an occupier. The
universities took up the Palestinian refugee problem as a
righteous cause to fill the vacuum in righteous causes caused by
the end of the Vietnam war. A new, non-western underdog was
required and Palestinians filled the bill.
Palestinian “self-determination” became the new shibboleth of
the Left. Just as the Left had turned a blind eye to the genocidal
depredations of the Communist Khmer Rouge, they quickly
accustomed themselves to the rampant terrorism against Israelis,
as well as Jews outside of Israel20 – by the Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO), whose evils they justified as a natural bloom
springing from the “root causes” of Israeli imperialism and racism.
Much of the impetus for their hostility sprang from the late
Columbia University professor, Edward Said, Egyptian born
member of the PLO’s National Council, whose 1978 book,
Orientalism, gave intellectual respectability to the objectively false
colonialist image of Israel. Said succeeded in redirecting leftist
focus away from Marxist class struggle analysis to a portrayal of
Arabs and Palestinians as the truly oppressed group.21
Said and other influential academics, with their direct access to
the vulnerable minds of untutored young idealists en masse, have
had a particularly pernicious effect in demonizing Israel, helping to
create two generations of opinion-makers so marinated in anti-
Israel discourse they are not even aware that there is another
side to the story.
And carrying the heavy water for that cause has from the
beginning, ironically enough, been the special task of left-wing
Jews. Intellectual leadership on the left was – is – heavily
dominated by Jews who have made progressivism their religion,
and opposition to Israel a proof of their political fidelity.
In Israel, progressivism shaped the “new historians” of the 1980s,
who promoted the theory that Israel and Zionism were born in sin.
Their books became weapons in the hands of western
21 Radosh, Ronald, “Turning against Israel: the downward trajectory of global prestige,” Weekly Standard, September 8, 2014.]
intellectuals and journalists to show that Israel was anti-
progressive, and they helped to turn many influential, once-
stalwartly pro-Israel Protestant denominations against Israel and
for the BDS movement.
What is the average person to think, when he listens to Jews who
specifically invoke their Jewishness to “explain” their hostility to
Israel? What is the average media person stationed in Israel to
think when many of the very people he mingles most frequently
with are hostile ideologues, if anything, more contemptuous of
Zionism than their European and American peers? Or when he is
exposed to a barrage of Netanyahu-bashing that makes Bush
Derangement Syndrome pale in comparison? (Ha’Aretz in
particular has made Netanyahu-bashing almost a full-time
occupation, offering pop-psychology analyses of the prime
minister, his wife and even his children)? 22He naturally takes their
opinion as authoritative.
On the other hand, Israel is not blameless in allowing so much
media bias to metastasize with so little strategic and systematic
rebuttal. Threads of arrogance, incompetence and downright self-
sabotage run through Israel’s communications history, and far too
little money and attention is lavished on what should be the most
sophisticated PR machinery in the world.
Meanwhile, Palestinian spokespeople throughout the decades —
usually articulate academics with long experience in urbane
media performance – have always remained on message.
While democratic Israelis confuse observers with open public
dissension in a clashing cacophony of extremist views from left
and right, media-savvy Palestinians speak softly and respectfully
in excellent English with one unified anti-Israel voice.
]22 “Weighing the Cost of Netanyahu-Bashing,” by Gerald Steinberg in Canadian Jewish News, October 8, 2014]
They sidestep unpleasant questions and often lie — “All we
want is peace!” — but they always appear reasonable. Ignoring
pointed, irrefutable evidence of their lies, they simply plow
brazenly ahead with their narrative, assuming that readers and
viewers will respond favorably to their aplomb and conviction and
forget the rational challenges to their facts. As Kevin Williamson
of the National Review tweeted on Oct 17, “If it weren’t for
rockets, sanctimony would be the No. 1 Palestinian export.”
They have been quite successful under this assumption. Their
narrative of a people that has always been there and has been
displaced is simplistic and easy to grasp. The Zionist narrative – a
long, convoluted account of wanderings and changing identities,
political negotiations and treaties, legal texts and ancient
documents, not so much. What do most reporters know of the
1948 war of Independence, the British Mandate and the Balfour
Declaration, or Dreyfus and Herzl? Reporters are not very good
on what came before or the larger meaning of events. The Zionist
narrative is associated with the sufferings of the dead and the
past; it can’t compete with the sufferings of the present and the
In his address to the 7th annual Herzliya conference in 2007,23
Richard Landes reminds us of the frailty of our western civilization
by recalling that “in the fifth century, a culturally superior Roman
civilization fell to a primitive tribal Germanic culture.” It can
happen again. The Global Jihad has escalated since 2007 and
will continue to get worse before it gets better. The Palestinian
narrative is fuel for the forest fire it resembles.
Concluding, I cannot improve on Landes’s advice to stakeholders.
[23 Landes, Richard, The Media and the Dysfunctions of the 21st century,” theaugeanstables.com/2007/01/23.]
To Israel: “Open a mouth. Go on the offensive…Challenge the
fakes, the pervasive staging. And demand that the media do their
own reviews before rushing, breathless, before their public with
the latest issue of Israeli sins. Remind them of how often and how
destructively they have been wrong. Hold journalists who work
here to their own professional standards. Feed information to the
blogosphere, not the MSM.” And spend more money. “Hizbullah
alone outspends you threefold in Hasbarah.”
To the diaspora: “Stop being embarrassed by the media-driven
image that you get of Israel.”
To Jewish leaders: “Stop the ego-battles…the hostility to new
voices. We cannot afford to play by the old rules.”
To Europeans: “Get over the politics of resentment…Rediscover
the Atlantic Alliance…Start addressing the problem of Islamic
To (especially younger) journalists: “Break out of the pack.
…And above all, blow the whistle. Break the shameful silence that
has made of your ‘fourth estate’ a rogue power…”
“The MSM are the eyes and ears of modern civil societies.” If our
eyes and ears are misinformed, we will not survive.