When Did Journalists Become Field Activists with PR Agents?
What Are They Trying to Sell Us in the Media – and When Did Journalists Become Field Activists with PR Agents?
Once Journalists Chased the Truth. Today They Chase the 8 PM Panel
Once upon a time – at least according to the mythology – a journalist was a strange creature with a notebook, principles, and the faint smell of black coffee and cheap cigarettes.
He asked uncomfortable questions, annoyed politicians, fought censorship, and genuinely believed his job was to make people in power miserable.
Today?
He opens Twitter, checks the trend of the hour, calls a spokesperson, gets a message from a PR agent, uploads a “dramatic exclusive,” and then runs to the television studio to explain why the public is stupid for disagreeing with him.
Progress.
Or maybe we simply replaced journalism with a home delivery service for narratives.
The media no longer merely reports reality.
It packages it, seasons it, chooses the angle, adds dramatic background music, and serves it to the audience with the headline:
“Here’s what you are required to think about this.”
Not news.
An ideological tasting menu.
The News Broadcast: Where Facts Enter and Narrative Leaves First
Let’s be honest:
Most people no longer watch the news to find out what happened.
They watch to receive emotional confirmation that they are still on the side of the good people.
If your channel tells you that you are right – it is trustworthy.
If it tells you that you are wrong – it is dangerous propaganda.
And just like that, instead of journalism, we got tribes.
The problem is not that every media outlet has an agenda.
They always did.
The problem is that today the agenda is no longer sitting quietly behind the article.
It is sitting on the table with a loudspeaker, running the entire discussion.
The headline no longer asks:
“What happened?”
It asks:
“Who is guilty, and how should we make you feel about it?”
This is less reporting and more aggressive couples therapy.
Journalist or Political Activist? Depends Who Paid for the Coffee
There used to be a clear line:
A journalist reports.
A political activist persuades.
Today that line looks like parking regulations in Tel Aviv – mostly theoretical.
There are journalists who openly hold political opinions, and that is perfectly legitimate.
The problem begins when they still insist on calling it “professional objectivity,” while tweeting like party spokespersons during election week.
They are not merely covering the protest.
They are at the protest.
Not merely interviewing the activist.
They are in his WhatsApp group.
Not merely exposing the campaign.
They helped draft it.
And when you dare ask whether this might be slightly problematic, the answer is always:
“This is not political, it is moral.”
That sentence, by the way, is the journalistic equivalent of “I’m not angry” in a relationship.
Run.
PR Agents: The High Priests of Modern Democracy
If kings once had wise advisors, today every politician, CEO, celebrity, and Instagram cat has a PR agent.
The PR agent is not a person.
He is a state of consciousness.
He is the one who takes a boring meeting and turns it into “major public controversy.”
He understands that “routine professional discussion” sounds weak, but “political earthquake” opens prime-time television.
He knows that the public does not really consume information.
It consumes stories.
And the media?
The perfect business partner.
The PR agent supplies the story.
The journalist gets exclusivity.
The politician gets a headline.
The public gets another reason to be angry.
Everyone profits.
Except the truth, but truth has not been in the budget for years.
“Experts” in the Studio – or: How Every Taxi Driver Became a Geopolitical Analyst
There is something magical about Israeli television.
Every evening, you can watch the same person confidently explain:
Iran,
the stock market,
education reform,
the constitutional crisis,
Eurovision,
and whether Abu Shukri’s hummus is still worth the line.
He is an expert in everything.
Why?
Because he sat in the correct studio chair.
The panels became a permanent performance:
one person shouting,
one person pretending to be shocked,
one saying “let me finish my sentence,”
and the host pretending he controls any of it.
This is not journalism.
It is a high-definition version of a family Friday dinner.
Just with better makeup.
Good News? Fear Sells Better
The media discovered a very simple truth a long time ago:
A calm person does not stay in front of the screen.
A frightened person does.
That is why everything is urgent.
Everything is dramatic.
Everything is a “historic political earthquake,” even if it is just a parliament member changing seats in a committee.
If tomorrow a city inspector loses his parking ticket notebook, the headline will read:
“Concerns of an unprecedented governance crisis.”
Because anxiety sells.
Calm does not generate ratings.
Complexity does not generate clicks.
But panic?
Panic pays salaries.
In Israel, the News Is Not What Happened – It Is Who to Blame for It
In Israel, everything is personal.
If it rains – someone is guilty.
If it does not rain – someone else is guilty.
If there is traffic – clearly it is a conspiracy involving the Transportation Ministry, the Supreme Court, and the highway workers’ union.
The media does not merely reflect this.
It feeds it.
Instead of asking how to solve a problem, it asks who will suffer politically because of it.
Instead of discussing policy, it discusses tone.
Instead of asking whether something is true, it asks whether it “plays well on screen.”
And that may be the saddest part of all:
The public no longer searches for truth.
It searches for a tribe.
So What Are They Actually Selling Us?
Not news.
That is the important part.
They are selling belonging.
Moral superiority.
Permanent urgency.
The comforting illusion that your side is good and the other side is either stupid or evil.
They are selling identity.
Because once you emotionally identify with the narrative, facts become unnecessary.
You are now a loyal customer.
Much more profitable than a newspaper subscription.
Final Conclusion: Journalism Did Not Die – It Just Moved to the Marketing Department
The problem is not that media outlets are biased.
The problem is that they still insist on presenting themselves as sacred temples of pure objective truth while doing public relations under dramatic studio lighting.
Real journalism still exists.
But it is rare, expensive, unpopular, and above all – inconvenient.
Because truth usually does not arrive with attractive graphics.
The practical conclusion is simple:
Consume news the same way you buy a second-hand car.
With suspicion.
Check who is selling it, why they are selling it, and what they are trying very hard not to mention.
Because if someone on television tells you he is “just presenting the facts,” check first who wrote his headline.
There is a very good chance it was the PR agent.
הירשמו כדי לקבל את הפוסטים האחרונים אל המייל שלכם
