"From this point forward, Netanyahu's messages should not be broadcast live to the public without journalistic intermediation," Uzi Benziman wrote in The Seventh Eye magazine, concluding his bout of journalistic outrage by noting the "unjustified tension" the prime minister aroused with his "cynical performance." Theoretically, this is a legitimate response to what looked like expropriation of a nightly news slot to deliver a message unilaterally.
I share the desire to see Netanyahu open his media performances to questioning. But the journalistic hysteria over his "demagogic spin" is forced and over the top. This type of event also has a place. On the contrary, as it pertains to the investigations into Netanyahu's conduct specifically and especially ahead of the attorney general's decision, a "one-sided" announcement was probably the more elegant approach and perhaps far more fair to the public and maybe even the journalists themselves: avoid a public altercation; present the message – with everyone free to take it as they please, to broadcast, edit, respond, discuss, interpret, criticize and refute.
This is precisely what could have happened the moment the prime minister ended his broadcast. But 80% of the media responses were instead devoted to the narcissistic discourse by media pundits about themselves; that is to say, it became an endless symposium on their own performance, status and "democratic duty" within the fabric of their relationship with the prime minister, which can only be described as an Oedipal complex. Because somehow, their journalistic introspection about their "role in the Netanyahu era" always ends with "Bibi" as their biggest threat to winning public opinion.
Unsurprisingly, another harsh comment by Benziman also flew under the radar: Netanyahu is "exploiting his position to brainwash the public." The hypocrisy is glaring. Not only is this notion preposterous in general when it comes to the media, which in the age of multi-platform competition has become a brainwashing mechanism "on steroids," it is doubly ludicrous when it comes to Netanyahu, whose most vociferous media critics have even admitted, openly and on more than one occasion, to harboring an unhealthy obsession toward him.
As a member of the public, I'm tempted to take offense when I'm painted as a passive, simple-minded glob of dough, incapable of applying critical judgment to the messages I receive. However, this is apparently more an expression of distress: What else can the dogmatic press do against a powerful leader, who in five minutes in front of the camera and in 200 words accomplished more than a crack team of publicists and thousands of hours of studio panels accomplished in over a decade? The only way for journalists to escape the cognitive dissonance in which they are mired is to define Netanyahu as a "brainwasher" and form a worldview – professional and civic – around the journalistic role as public protector.
To be fair, some of the discourse did touch on what Netanyahu actually said, specifically his call to confront the state's witnesses. Shockingly, however, the aforementioned "conception" permeated this part of the discussion as well. Among the bevy of legal claims against such a confrontation, Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer chose in Haaretz to emphasize "Netanyahu's clear rhetorical advantage over the witnesses" – or in other words the fact that he represents himself well – and, hold on tight, added: "As a polished politician, a lie from his perspective is a work tool." If he is a "brainwasher" in the eyes of the media, then in the legal arena he is a "liar." On both fronts, therefore, they should intercede, limit and if possible silence the prime minister. These constant streams of nonsense, however, have been unsuccessful; their problem is always the same: Netanyahu is more convincing.
