What’s behind Washington Post hit piece on EI? | The Electronic Intifada
Censorship by stealth
What could be the motivation for Dwoskin’s hit piece?
In the segment, I suggest that it is an effort to police and deter reporting about 7 October, by smearing anyone who questions Israel’s official narrative as a Jew hater.
It is also a specific attempt to discredit independent publications including The Electronic Intifada that have reached vast audiences since 7 October with accurate, groundbreaking reporting that mainstream US media refuse to do.
This includes reporting on how Israeli commanders ordered their forces to fire on their own people on 7 October, and debunking Israel’s claims of systematic mass rape by Palestinian fighters.
The Washington Post’s attack on The Electronic Intifada indicates the frustration Israel and its cheerleaders in the US media feel because they have been unsuccessful in imposing Israel’s version of events.
With First Amendment protections for free speech still strong in the United States, direct censorship of publications is not an option.
So there has emerged a nexus among governments, think tanks funded by governments and arms manufacturers, and big tech companies aiming to control what we can all say online.
The Washington Post article is therefore likely to be used by Israel lobby groups to pressure big tech firms to suppress the reach of journalists who challenge Israel’s lies, under the banner of fighting supposed “disinformation.”
This, however, will not stop us from doing our work and pursuing the truth.
What’s behind Washington Post hit piece on EI? | The Electronic Intifada
olddogthoughts 
Mainstream journalism used to tend to challenge the powers-that-be in order to truly comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable in an increasingly unjust global existence. Now, so much of it has become a profession motivated more by a regular company paycheck and frequently published name/face with stories or opinions. Indeed, a buck and a byline.
Also troubling is that mainstream news-outlet websites, including The Washington Post’s, are increasingly converting to ‘pay-to-say’ formats, where the reader is allowed to consume the article without charge but must buy a subscription in order to comment on the article.
Meantime, there still are reporters and editors who will reply to accusations of subjective journalism with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’ … Whatever the news media may be, they’re not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they but a reflection of the community in which they circulate.
As one who has consumed the news regularly since the late 1980s, I’d say the field of journalism has problematically become overly corporatized thus more readily externally manipulated and compromised.
LikeLike