Acknowledging that Elon Musk is right about something is disheartening, especially when considering his true intentions behind the purported defense of free speech. Musk doesn’t champion free speech in a general sense; rather, he advocates for his own expression and ideological stance.
However, Musk is correct in asserting that social media platforms are essential for uncovering truths that mainstream media sometimes conceals. It is the sobering reality that without platforms like X, the prevailing narrative might portray Israeli supporters as victims rather than recognizing them as aggressors in incidents that occur, such as the events following a football match in Amsterdam.
Elon Musk’s agenda is troubling, deplorable even. His social network has consistently harbored both Nazi and pro-Israeli content, alongside misinformation and disinformation, playing a significant role in shaping political discourse that contributed to Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president. Despite these negative aspects, social media remains one of the few, if not the only, spaces where the public can access firsthand accounts when traditional media chooses to obscure the facts.
As a journalist, I understand the weight of my words. It’s one thing to present information with a particular bias or ideological perspective, which inevitably influences newspapers, articles, or coverage. However, it’s entirely different to deliberately lie, hide facts, selectively present information to support an argument, and fabricate reality – as, for example, does Musk and his supporters on X and other platforms.
Hopefully, Bluesky will be able to surpass X and, so far less toxic, more open, and with better tools to actually control what you see and with whom you interact, become a relevant tool in the future. But that’s not the case yet.
In many cases involving Palestine, media trustworthiness is questionable—not due to superficial issues like clickbait headlines, but because the coverage is deeply ideological. This is evident in the media’s reporting of the riots in Amsterdam. Most news outlets portrayed the events as if innocent football supporters of an Israeli team—or even simply “poor Jews”—were brutally attacked by Arabs, depicting the latter as a violent mob deserving severe repercussions. This narrative not only fuels far-right sentiments but is also a complete fabrication.
As noted by journalist Ishaan Tharoor:
“I’m not sure I’ve seen a bigger gap between Western media coverage of an event and the online social media tracking of it (that significantly preceded news stories) than in the coverage of the unrest/violence in Amsterdam. Well before the apparent incidents of violence that followed the game, my feed was full of videos of Maccabi fans singing racist songs and attacking local people of Arab descent. None of that seems to be reflected in most headlines, which focus on the attacks that followed.”
While violence is never the answer—a stance I agree with—there is a crucial distinction between attacking peaceful football supporters because of disagreements and engaging in self-defense. We are at a historical juncture where self-defense against violent genocide-mongers disguised as football fans—including at least one IDF soldier and Mossad agent—is mischaracterized as antisemitism and pogrom, with the media not only hiding the facts but also fabricating a misleading narrative.
It took a few days, but Femke Halsema, Mayor of Amsterdam, recognized that there was no ‘pogrom’ in the streets of the city and that the information circulating via social networks was the truth—not media manipulation and pressure from the Israeli government and its false version of the facts. Meanwhile, Israelis also attacked French supporters inside Stade de France, near Paris, during a League of Nations match, showing once again the violent character of football hooligans.
Ironically, those who use “self-defense” to justify genocide and the murder of innocent children in Gaza fail to understand its proper application—when individuals attacked by mobs of Zionist hooligans respond to defend themselves. It is both acceptable and human to have biases and to interpret facts through a specific lens, provided the facts remain intact and are not manipulated to fit a particular perspective. However, the media’s coverage of the Amsterdam riots largely ignored these facts, exacerbating a conflict with global repercussions.
Meanwhile, Germany is striving to criminalize free speech and any criticism of Israel, equating all such discourse with antisemitism—even targeting Jewish activists. And all over Europe, we see a rise in cases of resistance and support for Palestine deemed “antisemitic.” The media’s portrayal lends support to censorship and authoritarianism by promoting a false narrative where the true perpetrators—far-right violent Zionists—are depicted as innocent victims of antisemitism.
Additionally, this coverage reinforces the fascist and racist stereotype that Arabs are inherently violent and dangerous, even when they are merely defending themselves and their communities.
Furthermore, the media undermines trust by supporting arguments from figures like Elon Musk and others who profit from spreading fake news, asserting that the media cannot be trusted. To regain trust, the media must respect its audience by focusing on accurate reporting rather than fabricating realities.
The media’s role in shaping public perception is profound, but this power comes with the responsibility to report with integrity. When media coverage abandons objectivity to promote ideological narratives, it not only misguides the public but also jeopardizes trust in journalism itself. In an age of hyperpolarization, it’s essential that news outlets commit to transparency, covering all facets of a story, even when those details disrupt a prevailing narrative.
Ultimately, the shortcomings of traditional media underscore the complex role social media now plays and at the same time prevent a healthy debate on the consequences of the lack of regulation of such platforms. The path forward for the media is clear: to rebuild its credibility, it must honor the principles of honest reporting and remember that readers are not mere spectators but individuals seeking a fuller, truer picture of our world.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
