Benjamin Netanyahu vs Ronen Bar: Five questions to ask yourself before choosing a side - opinion

Today’s news cycle moves quickly, barely giving a person time to think, and rarely giving time to actually process information and form an objective opinion. Since social media and AI have taken control of our news media, people tend to live in echo chambers, reflecting opinions from others and formulating opinions based on the way their news is presented. In a world where influencers abound, independent opinions are few and far between.

In our new media world, many of us tend to base an opinion on crowd-speak, without really taking the time for independent research. Trigger warning: You may have to go way beyond your comfort zone to examine opposing points of view. When faced with a controversial and polarizing news flash and you are deciding what to make of it, here are five solid questions to ask before choosing a side:

1. Who is reporting it and what’s their angle? Always check the source. Is it an outlet known to lean Left, Right, or sensationalist? Look at the track record of the news source. Their editorial history can give clear signs whether they are pushing a narrative or giving you straight facts.
2. What is the evidence behind the claim? Look for specifics – quotes, data, documents, or eyewitness accounts. Research those eyewitnesses to understand whether they represent a specific narrative as well. If the outlet uses vague “sources say” statements, that should be an immediate red flag. Like the old Wendy’s commercial – ask yourself, “Where’s the beef?”
3. What am I not seeing? Compare the news to other reports on the same event, even opposing news outlets. If key details – like context, opposing or conflicting accounts, or the other side’s point of view – are not included in a news story, it is likely curated to steer you, not inform you.
4. How fresh is the news, and has it been verified? When receiving breaking news, always wait before sharing, to ensure that it has been fact-checked or verified. So often, early reports get details wrong, and initial assumptions can be wrong. Wait for the dust to settle and don’t get played by your own snap judgments.
5. Why does this feel urgent or emotional? Algorithms are set to produce engagement. Engagement can be either pro or con. When you see an outrageous claim, and you agree with it, you will like or share it. When you disagree with it, you may share it with an outraged comment of your own. Either way, you are engaging and doing precisely what the media wants you to do.

Ronen Bar’s dismissal: A critical thinking exercise

There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue of Netanyahu’s firing the Shin Bet chief. Here is how to use the above guidelines to analyze the situation.

Look at the news outlet you are reading or watching. Analyze the headline or lead paragraph to a news story. Here is an example: BBC Weekend, March 23 – “Thousands of Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv against the decision by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet domestic intelligence service and resume fighting in Gaza.”

At first glance, this appears to be a factual statement; but if you take it apart, you realize that it’s a broad statement that begins with the thousands of protests – a vague claim. Is it 2,000 or 50,000? Is it a mass uprising or a large minority? Precision matters for understanding the scale of the dissent. How many protested and according to whose numbers – the organizers, the police, or journalists?

Secondly, ask who the protesters were and what was their angle. Are they a cross-section of Israeli society? Anti-Netanyahu activists? Security veterans? Hostage families? Their motives should shape the story.

Furthermore, the lead personalizes “Netanyahu’s government,” injecting a tone that implies that he is the driving force behind the firing. The first paragraph offers a subtle but definite nudge toward a narrative of unilateral control, casting the government as antagonists.

And finally, look at the “Shin Bet head,” who is not identified by name in the lead. While Ronen Bar’s dismissal is a flashpoint, according to the lead it doesn’t specify why. Is it due to his Oct. 7 failures? His resistance to Netanyahu? Something more? Context is missing.

Another telling point is lumping the resumption of the war with Bar’s dismissal. With no balancing language (e.g., “in response to security threats”) to soften the tone, it leans toward criticism of Netanyahu. The reader should always ask: “Is the framing of this article deliberate to hook readers emotionally or is it concise reporting?”

Thinking for one’s self is a tough responsibility, but in today’s rapid news cycle it’s the only way to get – in the immortal words of the late TV commentator Andy Rooney – “the rest of the story.”