Not a blunt lie, but framing: five recent examples from ynet
How word choice, quote hierarchy, and narrative packaging repeatedly push readers in the same political direction.
Criticism of ynet does not have to begin with the word 'lie'. Often the problem is subtler and more sophisticated than that. Not a crude fabrication of facts, but word choice, quote hierarchy, adoption of one camp’s political language, or the softening of context that should have been central. That is exactly how framing works: not through one outrageous falsehood that can easily be disproved, but through the organization of a story so that readers already know, almost without noticing, who is reasonable, who is suspect, who is legitimate, and who is extreme.
Across several recent examples, a clear pattern appears: the Kaplan protest camp and the activist elite are often normalized or softened, while the right and the government are more often presented through suspicion, ridicule, or heightened moral loading. Each case by itself may look defensible. The cumulative pattern looks different.
1. Assaf Rappaport and Channel 13: softening the political context
In its coverage of the Channel 13 deal, ynet presented Rappaport’s group in almost polished PR language: high-tech investors, editorial independence, a unifying Zionist consensus. What was not central in the framing was Rappaport’s public identification with the anti-government high-tech protest camp. That is not a factual error. It is a softening move. Had a similarly identified right-wing buyer appeared, it is hard to imagine the political context being treated so gently.
2. Ben Gvir and the legal adviser: the headline already delivers the verdict
In the article about Ben Gvir’s plan to appoint his aide as police legal adviser, ynet chose the phrase 'This is a joke' right in the headline, then added that he would gain another clash with the attorney general before elections. Before the reader even reaches the details, the narrative is fixed: not a controversial appointment, but a cynical and unserious move. That is classic framing.
3. 'In Israel no one answers questions': a headline that builds judgment first
Here too, ynet did not need to invent anything. It simply framed the issue morally from the start. Instead of a more neutral report on wartime briefing policy and the absence of a press conference, the headline itself builds a contrast between Israel and the United States and places the reader inside a preset hierarchy: there they answer, here they evade. The judgment is embedded before the context is even examined.
4. 'It is sad that Kaplanist became an insult': normalization as cultural work
The article about Eliezer Kaplan and the term 'Kaplanist' did more than tell a historical story. It helped normalize the Kaplan protest brand by surrounding it with moral and historical legitimacy. This is exactly how soft power works in media: not through an overt editorial, but through magazine-style writing that gently reinforces one side’s public respectability.
5. Silman, Trump, and Gilad Kariv: who gets the strongest moral language
In the article about Silman’s appeal to Trump, ynet gave major prominence to Gilad Kariv’s most aggressive phrases: anti-Israeli, clear breach of trust, mafia-like behavior. That may all be quotable. But it is still a choice. When one side’s harshest moral language gets such dominant placement, without comparable weight given to the other side’s framing, the moral conclusion is effectively preloaded.
What is the pattern
- The protest camp often receives language that is normative, softening, or historically dignified
- The right more often receives language of suspicion, mockery, extremism, or cynicism
- Harsh anti-right quotes enter headlines and subheads with ease
- Embarrassing political context on one side is often softened, while similar context on the right would likely be foregrounded
That is why the media argument is not only about facts. It is about framing. About who gets soft words and who gets hard words. About who is presented as reasonable and who is presented as suspect. And about the way public consciousness is built not through one big lie, but through hundreds of small editorial choices of language, order, and emphasis.
You do not always need a lie to shape the public mind. Sometimes all you need is the right set of words.
Links
- Channel 13 / Assaf Rappaport: https://www.ynet.co.il/entertainment/article/h1bb0g0bwg
- Ben Gvir wants to appoint his aide as police legal adviser: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1rlojntwl
- In Israel no one answers questions - this is how it looks in the US: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skzrgd2kze
- "It is sad that 'Kaplanist' became an insult": https://www.ynet.co.il/judaism/discourse/article/bktyuoklze
- Silman to Trump: sanction Baharav-Miara and Yitzhak Amit: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1emqpdfzx
Join Torenu's newsletter
One sharp email a week. Clear analysis. No noise.
Related posts
But What's the Strategy??
Time after time, the same voices that miss reality never stop for accountability. Instead, they pull out a question that sounds deep — 'but what's the strategy??' — and turn it into a smokescreen that hides arrogance, failure, and irresponsibility.
From Kaplan to the control room: what the Rappaport–Channel 13 deal really signals
The emerging acquisition of Channel 13 by a group led by Assaf Rappaport is not just another media transaction. For many on the right, it symbolizes the same ideological camp moving from protest power into one of Israel’s most important centers of influence.
Who controls information in wartime
In wartime, censorship and security considerations can serve a real purpose. But once restrictions keep expanding, the question is no longer only what must be hidden from the enemy, but also what citizens are still allowed to know about the reality they live in.