The sense is strange: these words are written after more than 50 years of journalistic work in the fields of e-broadcast, radio and television. So what did you do, actually? So, in one form or another, I was asked about the broadcast of the latest "see the world" program in the public broadcasting corporation, and before it in the broadcasting authority. It was my last journalist job. He was preceded by other journalistic assignments.

As a journalist, over the years, I did not reveal a fact that would have led to the overthrow of a government or its head. But apart from unpublished press information that might have made reality a sort of horseshoe, I must confess. Perhaps it is also my duty to submit to the public a kind of report that will explain why my salary was paid from the state coffers. This is the "arrangement", as far as public broadcasting is concerned.

So what do you have to declare, upon your arrival at the finish line, after the long marathon? In the most significant section of that report, only the heads of its chapters are mentioned here, it will be said: I acted in the spirit of the unwritten order in which most of my colleagues operate, and I in them, who fulfill their journalistic duties: The mission is to provide information to our citizens, our clients. In the spirit of an unwritten order, it is not our intention to deceive a large public of media customers, the one operating in a country where freedom of speech is practiced.

This is stated in general terms. These noble ideas are not always realized. Fact: The low level of credibility that the public attaches to the media. If so, you might be asked: "Who are you toiling for?" It seems that those who are supposed to take a look at the content so that it is distributed to the public fairly do not properly cope with this value mission. And where is the press council, which is supposed to deal, respond, make its voices in the field of journalistic ethics? President of the Press Council, retired Supreme Court Justice Delia Dorner, must be following the field trial conducted in the media, and for years, to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The phrase "field trial," as it relates to Netanyahu, was written by Professor Ruth Gavison. And this statement, God forbid, does not inhibit any information relating to the legal proceedings involving the Prime Minister. It is the press's duty to visit, monitor, enrich the public with information, but not to the extent of diligence. A commentator on Channel 11 reported that the attorney general would oppose any plea bargain before Netanyahu was convicted. Sorry: has the trial already begun? And where is the wind going in the courtroom, before they even have three judges?

In the eyes of a press major, Netanyahu's sentence has already ceased. Without "if" and without "but." And some call some of the professionals who claim to be "you state!" Pasting the nickname "State" to a journalist like her is a derision, an attempt to lower his professional standing. The TV broadcasts had the phrase "let me complete the answer", and of course "I didn't interrupt you, so don't interrupt me."

Some of the above comments, which do not hold exciting revelations, require the media captains to mind, especially in the face of public confidence. But I read in the paper, "No longer will a smile come to the faces of those who fill out the pages of the newspaper. The change is requested, without delay.