Have you noticed? The Jerusalem Post calls itself, ‘the world’s top English-language daily newspaper covering Israel’. It wants to be Israel’s leading national news provider. But its recent coverage of national political events makes the Post look more like a neighbourhood newsletter run by someone who doesn’t know the first thing about news. Just as Israel was looking at a Likud primary (on January 31) that could fundamentally change the face of Israeli politics (if one candidate won) or tilt forever Israel’s national political arena (if the other candidate won), the Post spent more time on stories about TV personality Yair Lapid’s decision to run in the next (not yet scheduled) national election than it ran covering the Likud primary.
At least, that’s the way it looked, especially during the final run-up to the vote (January 5 – 27).
The primary just completed has the potential to rewrite Israel’s political script. Likud is Israel’s largest and most powerful political party—right now. It is generally considered to be the nation’s most prominent Rightist party—right now. But there has been a growing sense of frustration within Likud because Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Head and Israel’s Prime Minister, has been acting more and more anti-Likud. In a long series of announcements, manoeuvers and decisions, his behaviour has not only been un-Likud, but clearly against Likud’s published public political ideals. Before the primary, there was talk of open revolt against Netanyahu over his political ‘sins’. There was also a (potentially well-founded) fear that if Netanyahu won the primary with a significant enough margin, he would use that victory as a mandate to make his rejection of Likud ideals official. He was said to have timed this primary to give him maximum leverage to end Rightist influence in Likud because he wants to shape Likud according his own will—not Likud’s ideals. The fear, given his track record, was that he would turn Likud to the Left, creating a new Left-leaning party that few in Likud wanted. If he won and then transformed Likud in this manner, then Israel would no longer have a dominant Right-leaning party to represent her growing Right-leaning majority. This would be tantamount to hijacking the majority against its will. This primary, in other words, could change the face of Israeli politics by leaving Israel’s majority without a political voice.
The Post couldn’t see this?
Netanyahu’s sole opponent, meanwhile, Moshe Feiglin, promised an entirely new political story, something Israel has rarely-if-ever seen: a candidate for national leadership (from the country’s largest Party) who was both religious and nationalist. His positions were clear, unambiguous and different from the Left. If he won, Likud would recreate itself as a strong, faith-based Rightist advocate the likes of which Israel may have never seen at stage-center. A Feiglin victory—or strong finish—could create tectonic changes for Israel’s body politic. It could tilt forever Israel’s national political arena.
The Post couldn’t see this?
In the weeks leading up to the primary, it was clear that we had here a singular election where each candidate could change Israel’s political landscape—and what does the Jerusalem Post do? Virtually nothing. Yes, they did run stories. They will point that out. But given the importance of this primary, their coverage was abysmal. The inference of their coverage was languid dismissiveness; Lapid was better (or equal) ‘news’.
This is not the first time the Post has failed in its public responsibilities. Since October 2011, they have been busy: they participated in a manufactured ‘selling’ of Gilad Shalit’s release (see Caroline Glick in the Post, October 21, 2011); and they jumped on a bandwagon to attack Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews even after Arutz Sheva ran a report that strongly suggested that the incident that started this attack looked like a premeditated provocation.
As with the Shalit story, the Post here ignored analysis and the pursuit of truth, to scream ‘fire’ in the proverbial crowded theatre.
Then, with the IDF-exclusion-of-women story, the Post did the same thing. Little analysis, few questions, no amazement that this issue only came up after Benny Gantz took over as Chief of General Staff: instead, we got , ‘FIRE IN THE THEATRE!’
The same thing then happened with a series of mosque arsons. Even though reports circulated that these attacks seemed suspiciously not ‘price-tag’ attacks by Jews, the Post left their brain at the door and shouted, FIRE!
Finally, with what might become the most important political story of the new century—the consequences of the Likud primary-- the Post went virtually brain-dead again.
For a neighbourhood newsletter, such behaviour is forgivable. But for a supposedly Premier news vendor, it is a stunning abrogation of public duty.
Still, there’s no problem here: you won’t have to read this because no news outlet will run it.
No comments:
Post a Comment