When the current war is over, and all the dust has settled, the nation’s key institutions will face a moment of profound reckoning.
Since this reckoning, this soul-searching, will probably not happen voluntarily, a State Commission of Inquiry will have to be established to determine who failed where and what to do to ensure that those fatal mistakes do not happen again.
The government’s role in the October 7 catastrophe and the events that led up to it – including the role of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – will need to be thoroughly investigated. The military’s role will need to be hashed out, as will the intelligence community’s actions. Where did they falter so disastrously? How did they drop the ball so terribly?
The media, too, will need to come under scrutiny.
While the State Commission of Inquiry’s mandate will surely not extend to the media’s role in fanning the flames of divisiveness during the judicial reform debate – a period of deep societal rift that Hamas exploited as a perfect time to strike – the country’s journalists must engage in their own soul-searching. They must assess their role in not just reporting on the societal fissures but in widening them. This self-reflection should extend to television broadcasters, radio interviewers, newspaper reporters, pundits, and the institutions they work for.
They will need to reflect on their role in raising the decibel level of public discourse, encouraging interviewees to take strident positions because it “makes headlines,” giving too much time and attention to the most extreme voices because “that is what makes news,” and highlighting those who scream the loudest or make the most outlandish statements.
Coverage choices impact public fear and perception
There’s a line between reporting on societal fissures and amplifying them; between covering protests and blowing them out of proportion; between presenting policymakers’ opinions and stirring up conflicts.
What was true during last summer’s contentious debates is true now, as the country is gripped by anxiety waiting for an Iranian and Hezbollah attack – either together or separately – following last week’s twin assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran and Beirut.
While the media is not inventing these anxieties and concerns – they are very real, and there are genuine geopolitical tensions and threats at play right now that cannot be ignored – it is undeniably playing a significant role in fueling the anxiety and contributing to the public’s unease.
Some of this is being done wittingly, and some unwittingly. For example, this is a big story affecting everyone’s life, so the media will give it extensive coverage and discuss the potential threats from every conceivable angle.
But doing so keeps the issue at the forefront of the public consciousness. People go to bed thinking about it and wake up thinking about it because it is being discussed incessantly in the media.
However, editors have choices about how to frame these stories. Will they report from the angle of, “Oh my God, the big, bad Iranians are coming to get us,” or will they focus on Israel’s preparedness to withstand a multifront attack, the alliance that has been created to help defend the country from a massive missile, drone, and rocket barrage simultaneously from different directions, and the country’s readiness for preemptive action?
THE MEDIA is also spotlighting statements from government and military officials about how the country is on high alert and preparing for various offensive and defensive scenarios. Additionally, there is a great deal of color reporting on the public’s anxiety – about people stockpiling supplies, buying generators, canceling plans, and staying close to home. All this only exacerbates the national mood of apprehension, causing even those who are not naturally anxious to question whether they are underreacting.
The media is not responsible for the root causes of this anxiety – Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah are responsible for that. The assassinations and threats of retaliation from Iran and Hezbollah are real and significant factors in their own right. But in reporting on these issues, the media tends to overstate, overdramatize, and magnify these real-world tensions. The media contributes to the current anxiety through the tone and framing of its coverage.
The media can shape public opinion regarding the government’s handling of the situation. Positive coverage of military actions and preparedness can bolster public confidence, while a constant drumbeat of critical reports breeds skepticism and fear.
So, how should the media be dealing with the situation? How can it tamp down anxiety – thereby not playing into the hands of Hezbollah and Iran, who seek to spread fear and sap national morale – while at the same time retaining journalistic integrity?
First, by contextualizing the threats, providing a balanced view that explains various scenarios without fixating on the worst-case outcomes. This will help the public grasp the real levels of risk without catastrophizing.
Second, the media can also emphasize measures being taken by the IDF and the local authorities to protect the public, something – where applicable – that can reassure citizens about their safety and give them a sense that they are not “sitting ducks.”
Third, it can present the news in a sober manner, avoiding sensational reporting and screaming headlines that only exacerbate fear. Also, it should contextualize the threats: who is making them, and how seriously should they be taken? Does every threat by a Hezbollah parliamentarian need to make the news cycle?
Fourth, it can provide insights from psychologists and mental health practitioners about how to cope with anxiety related to the news and offer tips for managing stress and anxiety.
Lastly, it can balance the constant streams of alarming reports about Iran and Hezbollah’s threats with positive news stories that uplift the audience and provide a respite from the relentless drumbeat of distressing and depressing news. Don’t ignore the bad news, but look as well for positive stories so the news consumer does not walk away feeling that all is bleak – because all is not bleak.