If World War II were carried out with today’s traditional and social media, would the prevailing narrative be seen as the same?
We were raised being told very simply: Allies good, Nazis bad.
But in the current era of moral relativism, perhaps the media would see the death and destruction inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom on Japan and Germany, and push back to justify what was done to European Jewry.
That may seem like an exaggeration or oversimplification, but the empathy awarded to Hamas terrorists since they slaughtered more Jews in one day than on any other since the Holocaust – and the disdain faced by Jews worldwide – may suggest otherwise.
This question assumes increasing significance as the war that began on Oct. 7, 2023, appears to finally be drawing to a close.
When the last hostages finally come home and Israel retreats to a new security zone designed to prevent more massacres, the focal point will shift from the military battlefields to the media ones.
That is when the narrative war will intensify, with a broader perspective. Looking back on the conflict, history will decide: Did Israel become an international pariah or did it save the world from nuclear destruction perpetrated by maniacal Islamic terrorists?
Many who have been involved have made up their minds, of course. But there are plenty of undecideds in the middle, waiting for a verdict.
Political affiliation in America obviously plays a role. Traditional Israel-supporting Republicans who are not from the isolationist camp will be more likely to deem Israel a savior than a Satan.
But moderate Democrats mortified by the likes of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani can be wooed as well.
I just came back from a speaking tour for HonestReporting in vacation spots: Aspen, Vail, Southampton, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard. I met plenty of Democrats who hate US President Donald Trump but are thankful for what he and Israel have accomplished in this war to make the world a safer place.
The media's role in deciding the narrative
ULTIMATELY, TOP media outlets will play an oversized role in deciding the narrative. Their coverage of recent events can be seen as a microcosm of the larger picture.
Here are examples of how they framed Israel’s strikes in Syria and its efforts to protect the Druze community.
The New York Times made it look like Israel used unnecessary force against the good guys in Syria instead of preventing the continuation of a massacre against a small minority.
The Los Angeles Times headline was “Israel bombs Damascus military HQ as sectarian strife rages in Syria.” The headline framed it as if Israeli commanders had just decided to bomb Damascus out of the blue.
There was no context and no mention of Druze massacres in the headline, which merely cast Israel as the aggressor.
Instead of headlining the reason behind Israel’s strikes in Syria, The Irish Times decided to make Israel look like it was waging war on Syria itself.
“Why has Israel stepped up its attacks on Syria?” the headline asked. Why not: “Why is Israel defending Syria’s Druze minority from massacre?”
The Telegraph also left out crucial context in its headline: “Israel turns on the new Syria regime?”
When did this new regime gain Israel’s trust? The two bordering countries have been enemy states with hostilities and zero diplomatic relations for decades.
The media has also downplayed just how brutal these massacres of the Druze have been. Besides just shaving beards, there have been beheading, rapes, and forcing people to jump from buildings and commit suicide.
Another example that reflects the wider picture is coverage of the Gaza Humanitarian Fund’s distribution of food to Gazan civilians.
Is GHF an important American initiative to free Gazans from their dependence on a terrorist organization? Or is it just where too many Gazan civilians have been killed, with numbers from “local health officials” that increase by an artificial algorithm media outlets take at face value without admitting the numbers are from Hamas?
The BBC's recent antisemitic scandals
A FINAL example is the recent scandals involving the heads of the BBC.
As HonestReporting highlighted following last month’s controversy surrounding the airing of a violent anti-IDF chant at the Glastonbury music festival, the British public broadcaster has a long history of bias and misinformation in its coverage of the Jewish state.
This latest controversy, courtesy of the BBC’s news CEO Deborah Turness, is actually an offshoot of a separate one that rattled the media organization earlier this year.
In February of 2025, the BBC removed the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its streaming platform after investigative reporter David Collier revealed that the teen narrator of the film was the son of a Hamas deputy minister and that his mother had been remunerated by the production company responsible for filming.
The documentary was also found to have engaged in several instances of mistranslation, sanitizing the interviewee’s language by translating the Arabic word for “Jews” as “Israelis” or “Israeli forces” and representing the word “jihad” as “battle” or “resistance.”
After the embarrassment of having to pull the documentary, the BBC apologized for the “serious flaws” it contained.
A 30-second clip was recently leaked online and shared on social media showing Turness on a Zoom call with BBC employees, stating:
“I think it’s really important that we are clear that Abdullah’s father was a deputy agricultural minister and therefore, you know, was a member of the Hamas-run government, which is different from being part of the military wing of Hamas. And I think externally, it’s often simplified that, you know, he was in Hamas. And I think it’s – it’s an important point of detail that we need to continually remind people of the difference and of that connection.”
Not only did the BBC executive try to downplay the gravity of the serious breach of editorial guidelines that the British broadcaster admitted to in releasing the controversial documentary, but she also created a false division within Hamas.
Pro-Palestinian groups are doing nothing to help Gazans
SINCE 2021, the entirety of Hamas has been proscribed as a terror organization by the UK government. At the time of this designation, a Home Office statement declared that any distinction between a “military” and “political” wing is “artificial, with Hamas as an organization involved in committing, participating, preparing for, and encouraging acts of terrorism.”
While there is no division among branches within Hamas, whose members are all terrorists, there is a big difference between Gazans and pro-Palestinian groups abroad that has been reported incorrectly.
International pro-Palestinian groups focus their attention on attacking Israel and do next to nothing to help ordinary Gazans, who are increasingly voicing their support of ridding themselves of the terrorists.
All these issues will go a long way toward deciding how the war that began on Oct. 7 will be remembered and who the good and bad guys were.
This is critical because Israel’s international image after the war will have a significant impact on its ability to recover economically and expand the Abraham Accords, as well as on the safety of Jews in America and around the world.
Just like at this war’s seven military fronts, the battle over the narrative is one that Israel cannot afford to lose.
The writer is the executive director of the pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting. He served as chief political correspondent and analyst of The Jerusalem Post for 24 years.