Netanyahu's Media Ecosystem Shapes Post Election Narrative

In the hours following the swearing in of the new Knesset, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech attacking the two Arab parties, labeling their members as supporters of terror who seek Israel's destruction. He urged the remaining political factions, including his opponents, to unite under his outgoing right wing coalition. This statement triggered an immediate and synchronized response across a vast network of pro government media outlets and social media personalities.

By 7 p.m., Yinon Magal, a former lawmaker and prominent media pundit, had posted on X to his nearly half a million followers. He questioned why Channel 12, a major news network, placed Netanyahu's call for a unity government in quotation marks. He also highlighted that most Arab lawmakers left the plenum during the national anthem, jokingly asking if this constituted outside support for Netanyahu's rivals. Shortly after, journalist Amit Segal, known for his close ties to the prime minister's inner circle, shared a similar sentiment on Telegram, noting the anthem walkout and questioning why Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu's chief opponent, was agitated by a speech he described as containing the truth about terror supporters.

This digital chatter mirrored the discussion on Channel 14, a pro government television station. On its popular nightly talk show The Patriots, Magal and fellow panelists debated Netanyahu's speech for approximately ten minutes. They portrayed the opposition's reaction as hypocritical. Magal argued that Netanyahu was targeting extremists, while co panelist Yotam Zimri compared the opposition's stance to the dystopian novel 1984. The show featured a chyron stating that the prime minister said not to form a government with haters of Israel, while the left responded with incitement and racism. At 10:34 p.m., Netanyahu himself posted a highlight reel from Channel 14 on X, urging Israelis not to form a dangerous government with the Arab parties.

Netanyahu and his allies have cultivated a media ecosystem that functions as both an echo chamber and a megaphone. This network allows them to reach millions of viewers with tailored messaging, often bypassing what they view as the establishment media. Opponents refer to this system as the poison machine, claiming it clouds reliable news with toxic propaganda. In contrast, supporters view figures like Magal as a necessary counterbalance to the perceived hegemony of left wing media, which they say suffers from a condition one commentator described as anyone but Netanyahu itis.

The media strategy has shifted rapidly in the two weeks since the October 27 election. Initially, the focus was on allegations that the election was stolen, a narrative that raised fears of an election denial movement similar to those seen in the United States. However, after Eisenkot's camp began reaching out to ultra Orthodox parties, the messaging pivoted. By Tuesday, the narrative had moved to promoting a unity government while criticizing the record number of 19 Arab lawmakers in the Knesset, who are now in a potential king making position.

Ayala Panievsky, an author who studies media censorship, noted that Channel 14 realigns itself quickly whenever Netanyahu changes his stance. She described the channel's loyalty as personal rather than ideological, stating that the media follows the prime minister wherever he goes. This intense alignment allows the channel to whip up the passions of its followers, creating conditions that could lead to significant political unrest if the prime minister desires it.

Channel 14, which began as a religious channel in 2014 and rebranded in 2021, positions itself as an alternative to the public broadcaster and other major news channels. While those channels include right wing voices, they also frequently criticize the government. This has created a split reality for Israeli voters. Before the election, Channels 11, 12, and 13 predicted Netanyahu would lose his majority, while Channel 14 predicted a win. All polls were inaccurate, but Channel 14's prediction proved to be the least accurate.

Nissim Katz, a professor of politics and media, described the Israeli landscape as a society of echo chambers. He noted that different outlets emphasize different aspects of the truth to frame events in ways that suit their audience. For example, while Channel 12 described the coalition's judicial overhaul as a coup, Channel 14 framed it as the will of the people. The channel's personalities argue they are not merely mouthpieces but a counterbalance to hostile media. They point out that their show includes token critics and debates on various issues, though panelists do not hide their preference for a Netanyahu led government.

The line between media and politics is further blurred by the frequent movement of personnel between the Knesset and the press. Jacob Bardugo, a prominent Channel 14 commentator, is now a Likud lawmaker. Boaz Bismuth, a former editor of a pro government newspaper, serves on the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Magal has also moved between politics and television. This pipeline is not unique to the right, as former anchors like Yair Lapid and Merav Michaeli have also entered politics. However, the coordination among pro Netanyahu influencers and journalists appears more synchronized than among their critics.

Maya Ilany, CEO of the Louis Brandeis Institute for Society, Economy, and Democracy, noted that there is a gray line between the party line and independent media investigation on pro government outlets. A recent study by her institute tracked the evolution of language on Channel 14 from election day through the following day. The report documented a shift from alarmism about Arab citizens voting to claims of a stolen election. Ilany argued that creating a similar anti Netanyahu media sphere is difficult because us and them politics plays better with social media algorithms than staid defenses of liberal democracy. She suggested that while there are excellent liberal content creators, they struggle to compete with the outrage driven style of far right influencers.