What Elisheva Goldberg Thinks of Me

I'm a

power-house activist

That's what Elisheva Goldberg wrote of me.

She attended the annual general meeting of the Friends of Israel's Media Watch.  I'm Vice-Chairman.

Goldberg published it as "The Dubious Successes of Israel's Media Watch" at Peter Beinart's Open Zion.

What bothers her about IMW is, and I quote:

- ostensible lack of vim and vigor
- their success comes from their willingness to consider the long haul.
- Their scrutiny of the Israel Broadcasting Association (IBA) has always been meticulous, and while their criticism is not terribly sharp, it is certainly sharply felt
- despite crude logic in order to advance a far-right agenda, IMW manages to be operational and successful.
- these guys have a bone to pick.
- they’ve been on the inside of a battle to get the blatantly racist, Caroline Glick-run satire show Latma (“slap in the face” in Arabic) on Israeli public television
- They have argued for better internal hasbara,
- Of the guests, almost all were in their 60s. One gentleman came in with a walker 
- Pollak himself clearly has an agenda

As for the rest of the post, besides the sniping, the petulant commentary, her cynical ignorance, the nastiness towards older people (isn't that post-modern racism?), all she does is disagree with IMW's views.

She does not prove we are factually wrong.

Or that we misinterpret the laws regarding media bias.

Or the principles of media critiquing.

That Peter Beinart published this is testament to his journalism values, or lack thereof.

My first reaction is in this comment I left there:

Elisheva, 

Accept my apologies that I could not greet you personally. You should have introduced yourself. I may be right-of-center but I do not physically harm ideological adversaries.

As for the content, I am still digesting it. However, sorry for being successful. Sorry for taking my civil liberties and democratic rights seriously enough to actually try to utilize my freedom of expression, and assembly and even my power-house activism. Sorry for being able to forge contacts and coordination with political figures. Sorry that the Jerusalem Post asked us to return and publish (no payment received by the way. do you get paid by Peter?) a weekly column of media comment. Sorry for setting up a website that forces news ombudsmen to be responsible for their decisions that for the first time are made public. Sorry for being effective in pointing out media bias.

Sorry for being us. Oh, we have only one paid staff (you really shouild learn the basics of journalism. Ask. Inquire. Don't assume).

Okay, so I'm not really sorry. But it's erev Yom Kippur and one of us, Elisheva, should be sorry. So, I'll be the gentleman, and I'll be sorry (and laughing all the way to the fulfillment of Zionism).


Oh, I forgot.

As International Relations Analyst and Editor at Molad: The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, you must be strictly neutral, non-political, center-of-the road and without any radical, left-wing, liberal, progressive prejudices at all and in the least.

Right? Oh, sorry. Correct?

Elisheva, it seems is in her mid-20s, Migdal Oz-educated (women's section of Yeshivat Har Etzion), from Seattle and her background is modern orthodox synagogue membership.  Her family, I have been informed, is not leftist-oriented but pro-AIPAC.  But she has "saved" herself by aligning with one of the weirdest politicians in Israel - Avrum Burg (who I know well).

Taking advantage of his wife's birth location, he asked and received French citizenship.  He has an odd Hitler-fixation of some sort which, I admit, I am still trying to dully comprehend although I doubt whether all is clear to Avrum either.

In other words, her words are but poison-dipped arrows, and not very sharp either, launched in favor of the neo-neutral-Zionism that is all the rage of "liberals" and "progressives" who are tired of being accused by Arabs and by their academic and social peers of calumnies disguised as propaganda and seeking a way out, turn on those who are still faithful to the basics of the return of the Jewish people to its homeland and who refuse to ignore the immorality that drives "Palestinianism", its disinventivity apparatus and its true violent nature and character.

As for media criticism, she knows even less.  So I'll stop here.

If Ms. Goldberg is a prime example of the new Zionism propounded by Beinart and pushed by Burg, either you can laugh or cry but for it all, it's a shame.

^

The "Broken Mirrors" Conference

Broken Mirrors:
Human Rights Organizations, the Media and Israel

October 31, 2012

8:00 Reception & Refreshments

8:30 Greetings

Moderator: Dr. Michael Ehrlich, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Bar-Ilan University

Prof. Haim Taitelbaum, Rector, Bar-Ilan University

Prof. Eytan Gilboa, Director, Center for International Communication, Bar-Ilan University

8:45 First Panel – Human rights: Does it really interest the press?

Chair: Dr. Aliza Lavie, Director, Center for Media & Religion, Bar-Ilan University

Dr. Einat Lachover, School of Communications, Sapir Academic College

Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitz, Spokesperson to Foreign Media, IDF Spokesperson's Unit

Mr. Yisrael Medad, Israel's Media Watch

Mr. Yizhar Be'er, Director, Keshev – The Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel

10:15 Guest Lecture - Dr. Pierre Sané, President, Imagine Africa Institute, Paris. Former Assistant Director UNESCO, Secretary General, Amnesty International

11:40 Second Panel – The relationship between human rights organizations and the media

Chair: Prof. Ariel Bendor, Director, Center for Media & Law, Law Faculty, Bar-Ilan University

Dr. Raphael Ben-Ari, Law Faculty, Bar-Ilan University

Mr. Hanoch Marmari, The Israel Democracy institute

Adv. Anne Herzberg, Legal Advisor, NGO Monitor

Mr. Boaz Bismuth, Foreign News Editor, Israel Hayom

Mr. Daniel Maron, Director, Human Rights Division, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

13:30 Lunch

14:30 Third Panel – Human rights: Ethical or political discourse? Chair: Dr. Yehudit Auerbach, School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University

Dr. Yishai Menuchin, Chair, Amnesty International, Israel; Department of Sociology, Ben-Gurion University

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, President, NGO Monitor; Department of Political Science, Bar-Ilan University

Adv. Danny Seidemann, East Jerusalem Expert

Prof. Richard Landes, Department of History, Boston University

16:15 Fourth Panel – Can human rights organizations and the media create a productive public dialogue on human rights?

Chair: Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Academic Deputy Director, School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University

Prof. Haim Sandberg, School of Law, College of Management, Rishon Le-Zion

Mr. Danny Seaman, Deputy Director General, Israeli Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs

Mr. Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel

Ms. Lilac Sigan, Ma'ariv; The Huffington Post

Mr. Qasem Khateeb, MBC

18:00 Closing Lecture – Supreme Court Justice (Emerita) Dalia Dorner; President, Israeli Press Council

^

Media Doublespeak

Our Media Comment column in today's Jerusalem Post.

^

Blowing Away Blau

Eli Pollak and I published in our weekly "Media Comment" column at the Jerusalem Post recently on the Uri Blau case.

And now this, from The New York Times, June 8, 2012,

Holder Assigns U.S. Attorneys to Investigate Possible Classified Leaks.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement on Friday that two United States attorneys had been assigned to investigate possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Ronald C. Machen Jr., the attorney for the District of Columbia, and Rod J. Rosenstein of the District of Maryland will lead separate criminal investigations being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“The unauthorized disclosure of classified information can compromise the security of this country and all Americans, and it will not be tolerated,” Mr. Holder said in the statement. Earlier on Friday, President Obama rebutted accusations that his administration leaked information about a terrorist “kill list” and cyberwarfare to make himself look tough in an election year. Without confirming the accuracy of the information — which was revealed in two articles in The New York Times last week — Mr. Obama said that such leaks dealt with the safety of the American people, its military and its allies.

What's good a la US democracy should be good enough for Israel.

^

How To Not Like The Media

Latin American media criticism:

I wonder what this was about. ^

They Misunderstood

Our Media Comment column drew some criticism.

In some comments, dismay was expressed that we used the term "autism".  Should we then also be prohibited from using "blind" or "deaf"?

And there were these two letters:

Two-way deal


Sir, – While it is indeed true that much of what passes for haredi life and death goes under-reported in the mainstream media, Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak are being unbalanced in their criticism (“Cultural autism,” Media Comment, March 29).

The haredi world boasts a robust media of its own, in which one finds zero coverage of what goes on outside its four cubits except as to cast aspersions and vilify non-haredim.

Any attempt by an outsider to submit a letter to the editor, let alone a guest column, that does not conform to the haredi party line is rejected outright.

Mainstream media, among them The Jerusalem Post, provide ample opportunities for haredi columnists and flacks to appear on their pages. I would suggest that Medad and Pollak try publishing such a column in the haredi media. Its very appearance would not merely be news, it would make history.

J.J. GROSS
Jerusalem

Sir, – The secular media is accused of covering Amy Winehouse’s death extensively and ignoring that of haredi leader Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg.

How extensively did the haredi media report on the death of Amy Winehouse?

YONATAN SILVER
Jerusalem

Well, yes, the hareidi press is woefully lacking not only ethics but reporting and coverage depth.

But the point is that public broadcasting - and not sectarian press - should cover all.  Those networks the public funds should be all-inclusive, politically and culturally.

But they are not.  The hareidi press is for the hareidim but the IBA and Galatz are supposedly for all.

Is that so hard to fathom?

^

The New IBA Law - Our New Media Comment Column

Media Comment: The new IBA law

The current system of self-regulation has not worked and public confidence in the press is lacking.

^

Our New Media Column

On Israel's Educational Television.

^

The Israeli Media Criticism Award Ceremony

The Abramowitz Israeli prize for Media Criticism is awarded by Israel’s Media Watch once a year.

The prize of $5,000 is awarded to two winners for an especially valiant, significant and qualitative contribution to media criticism. It is awarded for journalism criticizing the media, for providing and forming appropriate forums for media criticism, and for increasing pluralism and reducing monopolistic practices in the Israeli media. The aim of the prize is to encourage the Israeli media to open itself to criticism, whether from the journalists themselves or external sources such as intellectuals, academics and public figures.

Pictures from this year's ceremony at Bet Sokolow in Tel Aviv Sunday night:

Last year's ceremony.

^

Another Media Comment Column

It's up at the Jerusalem Post.

Media Comment: Fact or fantasy?

Israel’s Supreme Court decided last week to reverse a two-year old decision against media celebrity Dr. Ilana Dayan.

^

Our new media comment is up

Here, at the Jerusalem Post.

On Galatz, the IDF radio station.

^

Our New Media Comment Column Up

At the Jerusalem Post - Why not Ynet?

^

Media Words of Wisdom

Who dictated that current affairs programs must be broadcast on Shabbat? And if they must be shown on Shabbat, why do they not at least record the program during the week? Several paranoid viewers told me that those programs are shown on Shabbat because that is the only way the white tribe can maintain its hegemony, since a large percentage of the public does not watch those programs or participate in them. And the people who do not watch or participate in the programs, for the most part, belong to conservative groups, which are not exactly the producers' and hosts' cup of tea.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy here though. The pseudo-satirical shows are broadcast during the week, and they too, not surprisingly, feature the same people or conceptual clones...

Dror Eydar

^

Our New Media Comment Column Is Up

Here at the Jerusalem Post, In the media we trust?

^

Is He Libeling The Media?

Not at all.

Excerpts from David Weinberg's Policing the media on the amendment to Israel’s libel law proposed by MKs Yariv Levin (Likud) and Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) which would significantly raise libel penalties and make them easier to achieve, especially if the media publishes defamatory material on individuals without offering them the opportunity to respond fully and in real time:

...the angry media has labeled this a “silencing” bill and an “attack on democracy.” Not at all. In fact, the amendment doesn’t go far enough...Generally, the courts are not quick to rule that the media truly libeled anyone, nor do they rush to impose maximum penalties. Consequently, all the hyperbole about “silencing” and the crushing of free speech is exaggerated.

But [it] does seek to create a chilling effect -- chilling the enthusiasm of the media to blithely and liberally splash into print every juicy, outlandish and nasty bit of information they can possibly get their hands on, without proper fact-checking or allowing the accused a proper possibility to respond.

This is not a bad thing...Israel is one of the most lax journalistic environments in the Western world. Journalism education is weak; the standard of journalistic professionalism is poor; the self-awareness of editors in terms of their responsibilities (both nationally and personally) and their legal obligations (such as avoiding libel) is low; sensationalist stories and gossip journalism get a lot of ink space and air time; tabloid-style “exposes” are highly sought-after, and competition is fierce...The libel law amendment is needed. It could motivate journalists to be a little more careful.

...[however] a number of adjustments are required so that the amendment to the law cannot be too liberally applied. First, the amendment should distinguish between public figures (who deserve less protection from the media in the context of their public activities) and private citizens, who need special protection against the salacious inclinations of the media. Second, not every tin-pot prosecutor should be able to slap journalists with a libel indictment. The amendment should restrict this privilege to senior district attorneys.

What Eli Pollak and I published on the media and libeling (here).

And from the screenplay of The Insider, two relevant scenes:-

[and you can view it here, starting at 48 seconds and at 4:43)

HELEN CAPERELLI (CONT'D)

Alright, I thought we'd get together

because there's a legal concept that has

been getting some new attention recently,

"tortious interference."

(beat)

If two people have an agreement, like a

confidentiality agreement, and one of

them breaks it because they are induced

to do so by a 3rd party, the 3rd party

can be sued for damages for

interfering...hence, "tortious

interference."

DON HEWITT

Interfering? That's what we do.

LOWELL

I think what we're trying to tell you is

that it happens all the time. This is a

news organization. People are always

telling us things they shouldn't. We

have to verify if it's true and in the

public interest... And if it is, we air

it.

MIKE WALLACE

After we corroborate it. That's why

we've never lost a lawsuit and run a

classy show. (impatient, now) Anything else?

HELEN CAPERELLI

And "60 Minutes'" verification is exact.

And precise. And I don't think it would

hurt to make sure you're right...on this

one.

DON HEWITT

Why? You think we have liability?

What's the CBS News' position, Eric?

ERIC KLUSTER

There's a possibility, it's rather

remote...

HELEN CAPERELLI

But one we have to check on, Mike. I've

retained outside counsel to do exactly

that. On a segment, I might add, that's

already rife with problems...

LOWELL

What does that mean? "Rife with -- ?"

HELEN CAPERELLI

I'm told unusual promises were made to

Wigand.

LOWELL

No, only that we would hold the story

until it was safe for him...

HELEN CAPERELLI

(cuts in)

And, I'm told there are questions as to

our "star witness'" veracity.

LOWELL

(trying to control his anger)

His "veracity" was good enough for the

State of Mississippi.

HELEN CAPERELLI

(historic)

Our standards have to be higher than

anyone else's, because we are the

standard...for everyone else...

Whatever that means...

LOWELL

(wry)

Well, as a "standard"...I'll hang with

"is the guy telling the truth?"

HELEN CAPERELLI

Well, with tortious interference, I'm

afraid...the greater the truth, the

greater the damage.

LOWELL

Come again?

HELEN CAPERELLI

They own the information he's disclosing.

The truer it is, the greater the damage

to them. If he lied, he didn't disclose

their information. And the damages are

smaller.

LOWELL

Is this "Alice in Wonderland"?

MIKE WALLACE

You said "on this one." What about "this

one"?

And Lowell hears a changed note in Wallace's voice. After a

beat.

HELEN CAPERELLI

(familiar, seductive)

If this holds up, and it very well may

not, Mike...but, if it did. And we aired

this segment? And CBS was sued by Brown

& Williamson? I think we could be at

grave risk.

MIKE WALLACE

(a beat)

How Grace?

HELEN CAPERELLI

(and she's been waiting for

this)

Well, at the end of the day...because of

your segment...the Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Company...could own CBS.

As if on cue, the alarm on Helen Caperelli's watch beeps.

She glances at it.

HELEN CAPERELLI (CONT'D)

You know, I am sorry. But I'm due

upstairs.

She gets up, gathering her things.

LOWELL

Is CBS corporate telling CBS News do not
go to air with this story?

HELEN CAPERELLI

You're getting ahead of yourself. We're

all in this together. We're all CBS.

We'll find out soon. Thank you,

gentlemen.

And taking up her briefcase, she leaves. Don and Mike rise.

LOWELL

"Tortious interference"? Sounds like a

disease caught by a radio.

DON HEWITT

(to Mike)

Lunch?

MIKE WALLACE

Sure.

(to Lowell)

Don't worry, we call the shots around
here.

Lowell finds himself angry and alone. He crosses to the

window and pulls out his cell phone and goes to work.

DEBBIE DELUCA'S VOICE (OVER)

Hello?

LOWELL

(into phone)

Debbie, it's me. I want you to check

some filings and give me John Wilson's

number at Bear-Stern.

...

LOWELL

So, what happened to Ms. Caperelli's

checking with outside counsel first, all

that crap?

ERIC KLUSTER

That's happening. And, hopefully we

won't have to use the alternate, but we

should have it in the can.

LOWELL

I'm not touching my film...

ERIC KLUSTER

I'm afraid you are.

LOWELL

No, I'm not...

ERIC KLUSTER

We're doing this with or without you,

Lowell. If you like, I can assign

another producer to edit your show...

Lowell's stunned. He looks like he's been hit with a

hammer...

LOWELL

Since when has the paragon of
investigative journalism allowed lawyers
to determine the news content on "60
Minutes"?

DON HEWITT

It's an alternate version. So what if we

have an alternate version? And I don't

think her being cautious is so damned

unreasonable.

ERIC KLUSTER

(wry)

So, now, if you'll excuse me, gentlemen,

Mr. Rather's been complaining about his

chair again.

(laughter)

As they start to leave...

LOWELL

(mild)

Before you go...

And Lowell takes out...

LOWELL (CONT'D)

I discovered this. SEC filing...

(he gets their attention)

For the sale of the CBS Corporation to

Westinghouse Corporation.

MIKE WALLACE

What?

DON HEWITT

Yeah, I heard rumors.

LOWELL

It's not a rumor. It's a sale.

(rhetorical answer)

If Tisch can unload CBS for $81 a share

to Westinghouse and then is suddenly

threatened with a multibillion-dollar

lawsuit from Brown & Williamson, that

could screw up the sale, could it not?

ERIC KLUSTER

(serene)

And what are you implying?

LOWELL

(to Kluster)

I'm not implying. I'm quoting. More

vested interests...

(reading from SEC filing)

"Persons Who Will Profit From This

Merger...

(beat)

Ms. Helen Caperelli, General Counsel of

CBS News, 3.9 million. Mr. Eric Kluster,

President of CBS News, 1.4 million..."

DON HEWITT

Are you suggesting that she and Eric are
influenced by money?

LOWELL

Oh, no, of course they're not influenced
by money. They work for free. And you
are a Volunteer Executive Producer.

DON HEWITT

CBS does not do that. And, you're
questioning our journalistic integrity?!

LOWELL

No, I'm questioning your hearing! You

hear "reasonable" and "tortious

interference." I hear... "Potential

Brown & Williamson lawsuit jeopardizing

the sale of CBS to Westinghouse." I

hear... "Shut the segment down. Cut

Wigand loose. Obey orders. And fuck

off...!" That's what I hear.

DON HEWITT

You're exaggerating!

LOWELL

I am? You pay me to go get guys like
Wigand, to draw him out. To get him to
trust us, to get him to go on television.
I do. I deliver him. He sits. He
talks. He violates his own fucking
confidentiality agreement. And he's only
the key witness in the biggest public
health reform issue, maybe the biggest,
most-expensive corporate-malfeasance case
in U.S. history. And Jeffrey Wigand,
who's out on a limb, does he go on
television and tell the truth? Yes.
Is it newsworthy? Yes. Are we gonna air
it? Of course not. Why? Because he's
not telling the truth? No. Because he
is telling the truth. That's why we're
not going to air it. And the more truth
he tells, the worse it gets!

DON HEWITT

You are a fanatic. An anarchist. You

know that? If we can't have a whole

show, then I want half a show rather than

no show. But oh, no, not you. You won't

be satisfied unless you're putting the

company at risk!

LOWELL

C'mon, what are you? And are you a

businessman? Or are you a newsman?!

Because that happens to be what Mike and

I do for a living...

MIKE WALLACE

Lowell.

LOWELL

(runs on)

"Put the corporation at risk"...? Give

me a fucking break!

MIKE WALLACE

Lowell.

LOWELL

These people are putting our whole reason

for doing what we do...on the line!

MIKE WALLACE

Lowell!

LOWELL

What?

MIKE WALLACE

I'm with Don on this.

^

You Do Want To Influence Israel's Media, Yes?

The Israeli Prize for Media Criticism - 5772 (2012)

The Abramowitz Israeli prize for media criticism is awarded by Israel’s Media Watch once a year

The prize of $5,000 is awarded to two winners for an especially valiant, significant and qualitative contribution to media criticism. It is awarded for journalism criticizing the media, for providing and forming appropriate forums for media criticism, and for increasing pluralism and reducing monopolistic practices in the Israeli media. The aim of the prize is to encourage the Israeli media to open itself to criticism, whether from the journalists themselves or external sources such as intellectuals, academics and public figures

Former prize winners include: Aryeh Avneri, Yaacov Achimeir, Matti Golan, Caroline Glick, Amnon Dankner, Prof. Esther Herzog, Ben Dror Yemini, Yoav Yitzchak, the Action Committee for the Struggle of Creative Artists, the family of Captain R., Amos Carmel, Irit Lenor, Kalman Lipskind, Amnon Lord, Yinon Magal, Chagai Segel, Dr. David Tzangan, Yevgenia Korbachek, Amos Regev, and Nachum Shachaf

The prize will be awarded at the ceremony for The Abramowitz Israeli prize for media criticism. The public is invited to propose candidates for the prize as one of the prize winners will be elected by the public, as the "People's Choice" and the other one will be picked as in the past by the Prize Committee.

Go here to vote for your preference from among Dror Eydar (Israel Hayom); Matti Golan (Globes); Ben-Dror Yemini (Maariv); Rabbanit Shulamit Melamed (Arutz7); Ayelet Shaked (MyIsrael); Dvorit Shargal (VelvetUnderground):

And at Facebook.
 
Good voting.
 
^

Our Latest Media Comment Column

Our Latest Media Comment Column is up at the JPost:

The named and the nameless by Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak

Gender discrimination be exposed and dealt with, but it is unfair to put the whole onus on one community.

^

Our New Media Comment Column Is Up

The media boomerang effect
By YISRAEL MEDAD AND ELI POLLAK

The Media Effect: Israeli public aware that its press is too often a suppressor of democracy instead of its staunch supporter.

^

The Media as a Politburo

From Dror Eydar's "Welcome to the Politburo":-

When the Eilat conference on Israeli media ended and people began to leave, a certain veteran "Mr. Television" left the stage and quipped sarcastically, "Hilltop Youth for government," addressing several conservative journalists who stood there. When I heard his words, a Latin phrase came to mind: "Sic transit gloria mundi." Thus passes the glory of the world...



...the hypocritical fear and loathing over Israel Hayom reveals the widespread intellectual disgrace that Israeli journalism is in. Like Louis XIV, when he declared "I am the nation," journalists band together and declare in one version or another, "I am democracy" and "I am freedom of expression."

Those who, for ages, silenced the majority of the Israeli public and did not bring Ariel Sharon to justice because he fulfilled their political dreams by destroying settlements, those who did not gather at conferences to protest the disgrace of our democracy when Sharon shunned his own promises to those who elected him, as well as the Likud's referendum and more, dare to rise up now and teach us morality and speak about a "tyranny of the majority."...

...One evening, I spoke with a senior media personality who worked with all the "great ones" (she provided an impressive list of names and programs). I gave her my pitch about the exclusion of the conservative public (rightists, the observant, Likud, settlers, and others) from radio and television studios for ages. I explained that I wasn't referring to the interviewees, but to the interviewers, hosts, those who formulate the questions, those who hold the microphones. I told her that I grew up in a reality in which I, and others with similar views, had no voice in the media. If we review election results over the past decades, we can see a pattern of a tyrannical minority silencing the majority.

The lady was not confused, and in a few sentences revealed the ethos according to which the media has operated for too long. She said that right-wing and observant Jews are not "enlightened" and "have a moral dilemma" because they do not appreciate their fellows - the Palestinians - and therefore "do not deserve to be given the microphone." The word "occupation" was used a lot as well. How could it not be so?...

...A French journalist who was experiencing culture shock sat next to me. "How can it be that everyone is in agreement here," she asked. "Here's your lesson in Israeli journalism," I thought. "Look at the stage and you will see the Politburo of the party that no one elected, but nonetheless takes the liberty of setting our daily agenda."

^

Another New Media Comment Column

Here, at the Jerusalem Post:

Journalist's Feast

^