The Amit Segal controversy: What is the role of the news channels?
News anchors in Israel and around the world do not sit in studios wearing suits for nothing, as though they were attending an important occasion. Presenting the news is, in fact, an event of great significance. One might even call it a national ritual. News anchors serve as intermediaries between events and the public, conveying what is happening in the country and, in doing so, encouraging civic engagement and strengthening democracy. Citizens learn what is going on, hear analyses and commentary, and form their own opinions about current affairs, sometimes even taking action as a result.
But the greater the potential, the greater the danger. The media is the first institution any dictatorship will seek to control. The moment the media stops serving the public and begins serving a political body, a social elite, or any entity other than the people, it becomes a threat to society and the state. It presents an alternative reality, detached from the facts, and advances agendas that do not necessarily serve the public interest. To prevent this, the media must uphold professional standards, maintain balance, remain faithful to the truth, and act responsibly and ethically.
Unfortunately, this is happening less and less in recent years. In Israel, the meteoric rise of Channel 14 illustrates this transformation more clearly than anything else. The channel openly acknowledges its political agenda. More than that, in an interview, one of its leading commentators, Yaakov Bardugo, said that he does not consider himself a journalist at all. In other words, a media personality declares that he is not a journalist. So what is he? What professional standards guide his work, and to whom is he accountable?
But Channel 14 is hardly the only example. Channel 12, too, operates with a distinctly evident agenda. One indication is its continued employment of commentators whose predictions and analyses have repeatedly proved wrong, and at times utterly misguided, throughout three years of war. Yet they continue to broadcast with an air of expertise and authority, without ever acknowledging the limits of their knowledge or understanding.
The straw that broke the camel’s back in this regard was the revelation of private messages exchanged between Amit Segal, currently Israel’s leading political commentator, and members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s communications team. In response to the publication, Segal argued that he exchanges messages with politicians across the political spectrum and helps them formulate messages for speeches and campaigns. This raises an obvious question: if Segal drafts messages and speeches for politicians, whose views is he actually interpreting when he offers his commentary? His own?
The decline of the media is, of course, not unique to Israel. It is happening in the United States and around the world, and social media appears to be a major factor. Since entering our lives, social media platforms have revolutionized the way people consume information and exchange opinions. Today, the latest breaking news is often found on Telegram, X, WhatsApp, and Facebook, rather than on television news channels. Social media provides immediate reports on unfolding events, videos and photographs from the scene, and sometimes even reveals information that established media outlets are prohibited from publishing. We no longer need television news channels to find out what is happening around the world. We often know about events before they do and without them.
Social media also exposes us to a vast range of interpretations and opinions. Anyone can express a view, analyse current events, and attempt to build a following and gain influence over public opinion. These platforms have become the modern town square, where we can exchange ideas and encounter the wider public directly, without intermediaries. In theory, they have created an arena in which ordinary citizens can participate in the democratic process.
For now, let us set aside the question of just how neutral social media really is. What concerns us here is its impact on the established media. If social media now delivers the news to the public, what role remains for television news channels? What is the value of a report broadcast in the evening about an event that happened that morning and that everyone already knows about? Is that really “news”? And does the title “our correspondent for…” still carry any objective meaning? What professional and ethical standards are these commentators expected to uphold?
Putting the media back on track begins with clarifying its purpose in our world. If we develop a clearer understanding of what it means to be a journalist, what the profession demands, and to whom journalists owe their allegiance, perhaps the suits worn in those studios will once again be justified. Otherwise, they might as well change the dress code.
