Is it possible that media bias — particularly against Israel — has its roots in the Bible? Could distorted news be an ongoing aftermath of events that happened thousands of years ago?
There’s a concept in Jewish thought called maaseh avot siman l’banim, which literally translates to “the deeds of the forefathers are a sign for the children.” What this means is that the actions of earlier generations — whether we’re talking about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons, Moses and the generation of the wilderness, etc. — affect future generations in a metaphysical way. Simply put, the events of today play out some aspect of the events of the Bible for better or for worse.
We live in a time when reporters botch coverage of Israel, trolls share fake news about the Mideast conflict, and the lines between news, opinion, propaganda, advertising, publicity and entertainment are increasingly muddied.
Could the media be reflecting spiritual ripples radiating from the events of the Bible?
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
The Story of the Spies
As described in Numbers (chapters 13-14), the Jewish people left Mt. Sinai poised to enter the Holy Land when the people decided they wanted to first send spies to scout it. God permitted Moses to send 12 spies — a prince from each tribe — for a reconnaissance mission. The spies returned, giving a negative report that frightened the people. Two of the spies, Caleb and Joshua, gave positive reports but failed to stem the national hysteria.
The people cried in despair, prompting God to make that day — the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av, Tisha B’Av — a day of perpetual mourning. Numerous calamities subsequently falling on this date include the destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples, the banishing of the Jews from England and Spain (1290 and 1492 respectively), and the 1914 assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which sparked World War I, and set in motion the rise of Nazi Germany.
As punishment for believing the spies’ evil report, God condemned the Jewish people to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. The nation would have to wait a generation to take possession of the Land of Israel.
How Watchdoggers Would’ve Unspun the Spies
A closer look at the Bible’s account of what the spies told the nation reflects violations of all of The Eight Categories of Media Bias.
1. Misleading terminology is the use of language to prejudice an audience. The spies told the nation, “We were like grasshoppers in our eyes” (Numbers 13:33). Grasshoppers, of course, would have no chance fighting giants and the rest of the nation saw themselves that way too.
2. Imbalanced reporting distorts news through disproportionate coverage. The spies listed the seven Canaanite nations individually, rather than use the collective Canaanite description, implying greater numbers. Furthermore, the spies’ reference to Amalek was merely a scare tactic meant to raise memories of the Battle of Rephidim (Exodus 17: 8-13), as the Amalekites weren’t Canaanites and didn’t even live in the Holy Land.
3. Selective omission is the withholding of key details or stories, controlling access to information. The spies, who saw the land, never mentioned things they saw that would have aroused the nation’s interest, such as the Temple Mount (referred to then as Mount Moriah), Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarchs, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and also Beth El, where Jacob dreamed of angels ascending and descending a ladder (believed to be north of Ramallah).
4. Using true facts to draw false conclusions, the spies told the nation that “the land devours its inhabitants.” Rabbinic commentaries explain that God caused Canaanites to die to distract the inhabitants from taking notice of the spies. But the spies drew the wrong conclusions. Further, the spies described the cities as “fortified” to create an impression of Canaan’s military power. But fortified cities prove the opposite: The weaker a community is, the more fortification it requires.
5. Distorting facts is simply getting the facts wrong. The spies brought back large fruit to “prove” how bizarre the Holy Land was. But the fruit wasn’t bizarre, it was miraculously special.
6. Opinion disguised as news is when the reporter injects his or her own opinion or interpretation of events. The spies clearly overstepped their mandate by telling the nation, “We cannot ascend . . . it is too strong for us” (13:31).
7. Lack of transparency is when reporters fail to be open or accountable to their audience. Rabbinic teachings explain that the spies had a conflict of interest with their mission. As princes, they feared that when the nation finally settled the Holy Land, they would lose their status of authority.
8. Lack of context is when a reporter distorts a story by removing a frame of reference. The missing context from the spies’ report was that God had already promised the Holy Land to the Jewish people. It was well known to the Jewish people that God had promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), and reconfirmed that promise to Isaac (Genesis 26:3) and Jacob (Genesis 28:13). God even reiterated this point to Moses before permitting the mission (Numbers 13:2).
As for Joshua and Caleb’s counter-argument, the Bible doesn’t record hair-splitting debates over how to define a giant, the etymology of the word grasshopper or “who benefits” if the Jewish people don’t enter the Holy Land. Nor does the Bible mention social media campaigns, P.R. blitzes or talking points. The two simply reiterated that God was with the Jewish people, the land was good, and there was nothing to fear.
Learn more: The Eight Categories of Media Bias
Bible and Media Fallout Continues Today
Forty years later, the new generation of Jews entered the land of Israel. Joshua and Caleb lived to see it happen. According to Jewish tradition, the women of that generation rejected the spies’ evil report and also merited to enter the Holy Land.
The consequences of media bias show a lot of parallels to the fallout of the Bible’s story. Some Jews don’t want to come to Israel, fearing terror, not wanting to visit a country they associate with “occupation,” or a feeling of disconnect with the Jewish state they don’t relate to. Barrages of misinformation in headlines, tweets, talk shows, academic discourse, etc. mean anyone speaking up for Israel should needs a thick skin. And how many opportunities for peace have been missed because certain narratives fit the international press corps’ preconceived notions of the conflict?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex and requires more nuance than the news industry gives it.
Could it be somehow related to the spies’ evil report? And if so, what are we to make of it?
Featured image: vectors by freepik;
Before you comment on this article, please note our Comments Policy. Any comments deemed to be in breach of the policy will be removed at the editor’s discretion.
