Practicing journalism in the United States is no longer an easy or safe task as it once was, as the country that boasted of sanctifying freedom of expression has fallen to sixty-fourth place in the global ranking of press freedom. This remarkable deterioration has placed Washington behind politically emerging African nations, reflecting the magnitude of the crisis facing media amidst sharp political polarization.
President Trump made journalists permanent enemies, consistently attacking them in his daily speeches and describing most media outlets as 'fake'. This hatred for independent media has transformed into a systematic political doctrine, fueled by the resentment of his electoral base towards what he describes as 'elites' controlling the levers of the state.
Under these pressures, this year's prestigious 'Pulitzer' awards have acquired political dimensions beyond traditional professional recognition, as they were granted to a team of journalistic 'sources' who documented Trump's abuse of federal power. The 'Washington Post' and 'New York Times' were also honored for investigative reports that revealed arbitrary restructuring of government agencies and conflicts of interest violations.
Despite this professional excellence, mainstream American journalism remains captive to deep ideological biases when it comes to the Israeli occupation state. This is clearly evident in coverage that ignores facts on the ground in Gaza, focusing instead on protecting the Israeli narrative and pursuing critics of Zionist policies with ready-made accusations.
This contradiction emerged in an interview conducted by the 'New York Times' with broadcaster Tucker Carlson, who has become one of Israel's strongest critics in the American arena. Carlson did not hesitate to describe Trump as having become 'Netanyahu's servant,' criticizing the American administration's entanglement behind Israeli plans to wage wars in the region, particularly against Iran.
It is surprising that the journalistic questions directed at Carlson did not focus on the essence of his criticisms of the pro-Israel lobby's dominance, but rather on an attempt to brand him as 'anti-Semitic.' The interviewer completely ignored the tens of thousands of victims in Gaza and was only concerned with the extent to which 'Zionist feelings were hurt' when discussing the crime of genocide.
In a related context, the statements of the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, stand out as a stark example of this bias, as he adopts rhetoric that legitimizes the expansion of the occupation and the annexation of neighboring countries' territories. Huckabee, described as the 'Ambassador of Zionism,' bases his positions on what he calls 'divine promise,' a logic rejected by sound political reason but accepted in decision-making circles.
Historically, Israel has not ceased to incite instability in the region, starting with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 up to the current threats to Turkey and Pakistan. With this approach continuing, American journalism seems to have abandoned its oversight role, often becoming a cover for expansionist projects that threaten regional and international security.
Trump made targeting journalism and attacking journalists a systematic practice manifested in threats and legal prosecutions.
שתף את דעתך
The Immunity of the 'Ambassador of Zionism' and Double Standards in American Journalism