Guy Rolnick/screenshot, here 11
In a perfect world, this text would open like this: "The Rolnik Report program is an important intersection. Not only because of Rolnik, but because the series touches the bare nerves of some of the most explosive areas between politics and global capital, while also managing to fold within it the interests hidden from view at the level The local: Bibism's ambition to close the corporation, the Shokan group's fight against Bibism and Noni Mozes' war on both.
But the world is not perfect.
Watching the first two episodes (out of six) of the investigative program (this is where the problem begins), reveals a pretentious series (based on its name, which places the presenter above the subject, some would also say narcissistic), which does not necessarily bring receipts.
Of course, this does not mean that it is not interesting, fluid, professional and polished (sometimes, too much), or that it has no place (on the contrary, it has a lot).
It also does not mean that it is not important or topical (even if in a forced way at times).
But it can clearly be said that an investigative series is not.
In fact, the main thing that can be said about the series that seeks to investigate the way in which social networks poison and endanger our lives here, is that it is hard to believe that there is a young person in Israel who will watch it and learn something that he did not know before.
First, an introduction:
against the background of the success of "The Silver Tray" and the amount of enemies that Rolnik made for himself, the investigative series was marketed to viewers by the broadcasting corporation as "a series that the government would not want you to see."
However, contrary to the initial thought, Communications Minister Karai jumped on the head to earn a few more points on the way to weakening the corporation - it seems that the one who benefited from the free public relations campaign was actually Rolnik, who received automatic credit even before he revealed anything.
The basic premise of the opponents of the "expenses at the public expense" was that as soon as Rolnik opened the public's eyes to the secrets of the poison machine - this would harm Netanyahu - who, like other populist right-wing leaders in the world, established his rule by controlling social networks.
In practice, at least in the aired episodes, the concept of the poison machine, as well as the phrase Binyamin Netanyahu, are not mentioned at all.
Did the white elephant in the room take a nap?
Maybe.
And maybe he will come back again.
As of now, its lack threatens to make the series almost disconnected from Israeliness, at least in a political sense.
This is doubly evident against the background of an (excellent) article that was published very recently in Rolnik's newspaper, which speaks from the inside of the machine.
It is possible that the series consciously chose to skip over the political "here and now" in order to give a "look at" and a global context on the damage created by the networks, but the anchor of the series - the October 7th massacre - does not really allow the same escape to the distant worlds of Mark Zuckerberg and the scents of Congress.
If slaughter, then poison.
Sometimes you have to choose.
The main theme, and price
Already with its launch, the corporation attributed the high costs of its production to the adjustments they made to the reality of the aftermath of the massacre.
There is nothing to be jealous of the dilemma that must have accompanied the creators, who finally made a legitimate decision to focus on him.
But the price of the decision is the reduction and flattening of the entire tragic event to the subject of social networks.
The networks do echo fake news and anti-Semitism and increase polarization, but also the lack of government policy over the years, failed propaganda and relations between countries have here and there a contribution to the massacre, as well as
to the actions of the person.
One of the most prominent examples of that fallacy is a logical constraint made in the episode aired this week to justify the thesis.
During the episode, two questions were presented from two different surveys that were done, with the aim of sharpening the chaos and disinformation that the networks sow in the public.
In the first survey presented by Rolnik, on behalf of Harvard University's McCaun Harris, it appears that 32% of the 18-24 year olds in the US believe that a massacre did not take place on 7/10. An amazing figure, which Rolnik hangs in the space of denial and the fake that echoes on behalf of Israel haters on social media To substantiate the claim and clarify that it is not relevant only to America, which is characterized by relative ignorance and has progressive fringes, Rolnik provides a survey
by
the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University, according to which 33% of Israelis believe that officials in the security establishment knew about the Hamas attack.
Guy Rolnick/screenshot, here 11
Even without Instagram and Twitter, the American public created endless theories regarding the Kennedy murder, similar to those that surrounded the Israeli public after Rabin's murder
The problem is that the very comparison between the questions is absurd.
The first, a factual, binary question, the answer to which is yes and no (and the problem with it is the wording of the biased question, which places a lie as an option).
On the other hand, the second question, which deals with the issue of the IDF leadership's knowledge or lack of knowledge, may be biased, but it is based on a disputed factual basis. The public is fed a few fragments of information about certain information that various levels of the army had before the disaster. This is a fact. In fact , this is the main default question regarding the massacre. In this framing and minus theories of treason, it is not certain that the answer does not mainly express a healthy skepticism.
The same is true of the "accusation" of the networks in cultivating conspiracy theories. This is certainly true, which was beautifully demonstrated by Rolnik through experts who explained about the "chaos algorithm" - But at the same time, she also ignores the history that proves conspiracy theories flourish after every traumatic event. Even without Instagram and Twitter, the American public created endless theories about the Kennedy murder, similar to those that surrounded the Israeli public after the Rabin murder. Even after the twin attacks, the conspiracy machine worked non-stop This is how the human psyche works in worlds of shock. It doesn't need a Facebook post for that.
More in Walla!
Karai claims that he takes care of the weaker sections, but who (really) benefits from Idan Plus?
To the full article
Guy Rolnick/screenshot, here 11
packing plant (polished)
Another weakness of the program is in the classic journalistic sense.
In both episodes, Rolnik packaged the existing information nicely (even if sometimes bombastic, and with an exaggerated soundtrack reminiscent of articles pretending to be an investigation on Channel 14), but did not bring even one iota of new information out of the vastness of the content.
The subject of incitement in the networks has already been discussed extensively in a Netflix film from three years ago, and under "Smoke Screens: The Digital Trap" testimonies of former senior executives of companies were brought, who revealed how the networks work to influence.
The film even featured an MIT study that revealed that fake news is spread online six times faster than verified information, and according to the film - for Google and Facebook it's great for business.
YouTube's algorithm, for example, recommended that users watch tens of millions of times theories proving why the Earth is flat - and many believed it.
But the problem is, of course, with far more sophisticated and destructive lies.
During the second episode, Rolnik, together with a group of (Israeli) students, is stunned by the denial of the massacre and the rising anti-Semitism in the world's leading universities, as well as the fact that the established media systems are not treated among the younger generation.
However, even here he ignores three years of Corona in which the power of the established press actually increased - and the fact that during a crisis a large part of the public still sees the major news channels and journalists as an address.
Convincing evidence of this is the high ratings in the first two months of the massacre - which captivated over 30% of the public to the screens and boosted the traffic of the major news sites.
This is not an unusual event.
It is proven time and time again that in national events of an extreme nature the public may see videos on TikTok, but the main point of reference for them is the "official" information channels.
In addition, throughout the series Rolnik focuses on Facebook, but Facebook is considered the declining network in the US, on the verge of being irrelevant, certainly to the younger generation. How can it be claimed on the one hand that the next generation is more influenced and polarized and base the claim on a social network that it is not on at all.
Rolnik brought a local smoking gun to the fact that despite the mechanisms they intentionally and maliciously allow and encourage incitement and lies to encourage traffic
What did the series do?
The networks have a reporting mechanism for inappropriate posts and a treatment mechanism.
Rolnik brought a domestic smoking gun to the fact that despite the mechanisms they have established, they willfully and maliciously enable and encourage incitement and falsehoods to encourage traffic, which generates revenue.
The public (who did not watch "The Digital Trap", or the (good) movies of Dror Gloverman in Bekeshet, could mistakenly think that this happens by accident or negligence. In addition, Rolnik found an executive at Facebook who said (without citation or attribution, and through an actor!) that if in the war The Second World War was Tik Tok. The Nazis would have won. Ok. Either way, important things that reflect attitude and mindset, but rock-solid research is not.
After the review, there is a minefield that is important to unpack because it is at the center of the demagogic arguments of Rolnik's opponents, some of them mind-warping in themselves: The cost of the series, about NIS 600,000 per episode, may be high, and that's a good thing. That's exactly what public broadcasting is for, so that the public can enjoy quality content. The question is what is the product and what is the product.
Perhaps here is the problem. The Rolnik report should not be treated as an investigative program, but as a docu for adults. There is a large audience (4.9% of Jewish households on average) for whom key phrases such as "The networks are trying to take over our lives" said in 2024 are a novelty. The gap between the abysmal seriousness with which they are said and the novelty itself can be bridged by an actor.
More on the same topic:
Guy Rolnik
Social Networks
Broadcasting Corporation
The Marker
War of Iron Swords