Opinion main agenda | Israel today

Every morning, the first thing I see is a cluster of newspaper covers.

In a group at work, the printed newspaper covers are shared every morning, and I flick through them with an eye that is still half asleep.

I see a headline and a bit more from the cover page.

Some days I make a collage of these gates, and then, at the end of the week, a collage of the collages.

From the group work emerges a picture that is nothing less than a picture of darkness.

The amount of poison thrown at the new government and its voters is unprecedented.

There is hardly a matter-of-fact, non-judgmental or aggressive line.

When something real happens they attack it, and when it doesn't - they look for it.

In one economic newspaper this week a headline was published, which told that Rebbe Magor is rich.

That's right.

A picture of the Rebbe and a caption that said that he owns land in the settlement of Arsuf, which he inherited from his ancestors.

News that is not new, not important, a bit interesting gossipy, but headline?

a disgrace

In the heat of the struggle, the professionals lost the north completely.

We are a small country that is easy to map, so some of the cases can be explained.

This newspaper belongs to a certain party and the other to an unknown party, and they have an interest.

But what about the other newspapers?

And what about the television and radio networks?

Here is the question of the week: What causes most of the media - not all, but most - to take a clear side in the political conflict and fight the government and the coalition in a clear way?

A week ago I mentioned here the fascinating story of Judge Oded Modric.

Modric announced that he was interviewed by News 12 regarding the legal reform and expressed a positive opinion on most of it - but his words were distorted and presented as if he were part of its critics.

This story shocked me, because it proved to me how big is the role of the media as a mediator in the political and social conflict.

But after the review, and following the events of the weekend, a much bigger problem has to be made difficult: Modric goes out to interview Modric - a senior and well-known judge, who according to any stereotypical division is supposed to oppose the reform.

The material arrives in the system, and from watching it it becomes clear that Modric, well, supports the reform!

This is interesting news, this is good news!

It turns out that there is also a disagreement here between judges and jurists.

It is even exclusive news on a certain level for the news channel, because it owns this information.

That is, contrary to what you will hear on the competitor's channel, as if there is unanimity among the jurists against the reform, it turns out that the reality is more complex.

That is, according to any journalistic standard, the interview with Modric as written and spoken is the hot journalistic commodity.

I would open an edition in it.

But the low-flying journalists decided exactly the opposite, distorted his words and earned a reputation.

And what did they gain?

Another weak voice, one out of a thousand, against the reform.

And why is this happening?

I'm tired of explaining.

It only happens because of the bubbles.

The television channels do not promote a left-liberal agenda because they serve someone, and not because they are willing to sacrifice popularity on the altar of ideology.

no and no.

They are promoting an agenda that for them is popular and acceptable to everyone - they are simply wrong in the definition of "everyone".

"Everyone", for them, is everyone around them.

This is the entire Torah.

And how lucky Oded Modric has Twitter.

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us