Factually, the right-wing complaints are justified: Despite the recent cracks, the leftist bar in the Israeli media is clear. Even after some improvements, the right wing is almost knocked out: an overwhelming majority of central screen occupiers are veteran secular Jews, only a third of Mizrahim, a quarter of women, less than a tenth of whom are religious, and margins remain Arab and immigrant. Studies indicate the bias of media executives, in the form of providing media coverage to decision makers, in favor of leftist ideology (the Oslo ethnographic, for example).

But paradoxically, media hegemony does not necessarily translate into a sweeping influence on public opinion. On the contrary, media control seems to be a stable recipe for political suicide and loss of support for the masses. Hands-onism on the one hand, and Likud's stability following the campaign's decline into territory on the other, prove this. How does this happen? Why does the Left lose masses time and time again, despite its dominance of the media?

Classical theorists and empirical scholars in the field of political sociology emphasize that direct dialogue between the masses and political leadership is a prerequisite for political victory. A party cannot win if its businesses do not smell the sweat, garlic and street smells. Part of the constant dialogue between the mob and political leadership is through conceptual discussions within the political branches and political institutions, as well as through participation in the circumcision of the grandson of the functioning uncle or of the center member.

In the past, the left knew how to play the game, but over time, its businessmen stopped talking directly to the people, and moved to talk over it through the microphone and camera. As a result of the Left's enslavement to the mass media, it began to run politically not according to the agenda of the people, but according to the news diaries. And the result? The studio occupies the ratings tables.

It should be emphasized: It is not just conferences and house classes during elections - so are the left-wing parties. It refers to the continuous and continuous existence of vibrant politics in the branches and the center, which produces a constant movement between the territory and the leadership. In anti-democratic parties like blue and white - it just doesn't exist. The name of the political ethos is based on the coercive leader in his choices and decisions, hence the concept of "top" communication as a mass consciousness designer. Democratic culture in the national camp's flagship party may be so vibrant, precisely because of the long-standing exclusion of agenda-setting.

Against this backdrop, the right is recommended to adopt the winning principle: to let the left parties pose with Abu Mazen as the right moves from house to house, from intersection to intersection, and talks to the people. The right's claim to divide the media cake is morally and legally justified. Not sure it's strategically correct. Perhaps the right should stop its war of choice in the media, leaving its captaincy with their victory victory?

Dr. Shlomo Zadok is an expert in political sociology