On journalism, universities and the temptation of activism

The analysis by journalist Matti Friedman of media coverage concerning Israel and Gaza — as published in, among others, The Atlantic and Tablet — touches upon an uncomfortable issue in the functioning of modern institutions. His central argument is not that the media “lie”, but that structural mechanisms, selection, framing and institutional culture, lead to a systematically distorted representation of reality.

Although his analysis focuses on international journalism, it provides a broader analytical framework that can also be applied to other domains where knowledge, interpretation and societal pressure converge. Precisely for that reason, his observation is relevant: it extends beyond journalism alone. A similar dynamic can also be observed in the Netherlands, particularly at the intersection of media, universities and politics.

Selection as subtle steering

Friedman points to a seemingly simple, yet fundamental observation: attention is never neutral. The volume of coverage implicitly determines what is perceived as important.

In the Netherlands, the intensity of attention devoted to Israel, Gaza, and increasingly Iran is strikingly high, especially when compared to other conflicts or humanitarian crises. This disparity cannot easily be explained solely on the basis of objective criteria such as scale, casualties or geopolitical impact.

What emerges is a form of selective urgency: a situation in which one conflict becomes morally and politically central, while other conflicts remain structurally underexposed.

From interpretation to positioning

Friedman describes a shift within journalism: from describing reality to interpreting it through a normative framework. A comparable development is visible within universities.

Where academic institutions traditionally allowed space for diverse interpretations, a dominant moral positioning is increasingly taking shape. International conflicts are interpreted through fixed analytical frameworks, such as colonialism, oppression and power asymmetry.

These frameworks are, in themselves, legitimate and analytically valuable. The problem arises when they become exclusive — when they no longer offer one perspective, but become the perspective.

The broadening of activism

A striking feature of the current debate is the increasing interconnectedness of different activist movements. While organisations such as Extinction Rebellion began as explicitly climate and environmental movements, focusing on biodiversity loss and CO₂ reduction, a clear broadening can now be observed within parts of these networks.

What began as ecological urgency is increasingly framed within a broader system critique, in which capitalism, colonialism and power structures are seen as underlying causes. From that perspective, the connection to geopolitical conflicts, such as Israel–Palestine, is made as an expression of those same structures.

It is precisely here that an analytical problem arises. Concepts such as ‘colonialism’ are often applied in public and academic discourse as overarching explanatory models, without always doing justice to the historical and geopolitical complexity of specific regions. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has a long and layered history, involving different population groups, migration flows, political developments and regional power dynamics.

By interpreting this conflict primarily through a single theoretical framework, there is a risk that other relevant dimensions — such as the broader regional context, internal diversity within populations, and historical........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)