Time to bring the Media to Account for deliberate mistruths

In the aftermath of the recent conflict in Gaza, a troubling pattern has emerged in global media coverage: the dissemination of misleading or outright false narratives. Robert Blum's editorial in The Jerusalem Post (Jerusalem Post) highlights the urgent need for accountability in journalism, especially when reporting on sensitive issues like the Gaza conflict.

The Famine Fabrication

One of the most glaring examples of media misreporting was the widespread claim of a famine in Gaza. Prominent outlets, including The New York Times, featured images of emaciated children purportedly suffering from starvation due to Israeli blockades. However, investigations revealed that many of these children had pre-existing medical conditions, and some images were manipulated to exclude healthier individuals in the background. The Anadolu Agency, a state-run Turkish news service known for its anti-Israel stance, was a primary source for these images. Despite evidence debunking the famine claims, these narratives persisted in mainstream media, influencing public perception and policy discussions.

The Role of Media Outlets

Blum criticizes major media organizations for their lack of due diligence in verifying information before publication. The rush to publish sensational stories often trumps the responsibility to report accurately. This phenomenon is not limited to Gaza; similar patterns have been observed in various conflict zones worldwide. The absence of significant repercussions for these journalistic failures raises questions about the ethical standards upheld by these institutions.

The Need for Accountability

The editorial calls for a reevaluation of legal protections afforded to media outlets, especially when they knowingly disseminate false information. While freedom of the press is fundamental, it should not shield entities that engage in deliberate misinformation. Blum suggests that in an era where information is weaponized, there must be mechanisms to hold media organizations accountable for their role in shaping public opinion and policy.

Conclusion

The Gaza reporting crisis underscores a broader issue within global journalism: the balance between speed and accuracy. As consumers of news, it is imperative to critically assess the information presented to us and advocate for higher standards in media practices. Only through rigorous accountability can we ensure that the press serves its true purpose: to inform the public with integrity and truthfulness.

Say NO to the Return of the Voice by Stealth

When Australians went to the polls just two years ago, the message was loud and clear:

We reject race-based divisions in our democracy.

Over 60% of Australians, including a majority in every state — Victoria included — voted “No” to the constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal Voice to Parliament. It was a rejection of the idea that one group of Australians should have a separate, permanent political structure based on ancestry.

But apparently, democracy only matters when it delivers the result the Left wants.

Because here we are again — the Victorian Labor government is pushing through legislation for a state-based “People’s Assembly”, effectively a Voice to Parliament 2.0, under a new name: “Gellong Wall,” meaning pointed spear. The symbolism could not be more ironic.

This new body, will not merely be advisory. It will have the power to monitor, influence, and intervene in almost every area of government policy under the guise of “advancing Indigenous interests.” It will have the right to meet with ministers, departmental heads, and demand formal responses to its representations. In effect, it becomes a third chamber of parliament — unelected, unaccountable, and defined entirely by race.

All this, despite the fact that only about 1% of Victorians identify as Indigenous.

Worse still, every new piece of legislation introduced in Victoria will require a statement of compatibility — not with the Constitution or human rights — but with “addressing the injustices of colonisation.” That’s a political litmus test straight from the activist playbook, not a principle of governance in a modern democracy.

And let’s be clear: this is not about “listening.”
This is about rewriting history, institutionalising division, and embedding guilt into law.

The so-called “truth-telling” element of the bill will ensure that the “ongoing impacts of colonisation” are “widely disseminated,” particularly in schools — meaning children will be taught a caricature of Australian history that omits inter-tribal violence, internal conflicts, and decades of government support and goodwill.

Even more astonishingly, this comes after every single state rejected the Voice referendum. Yet, Labor presses ahead, using legislation and executive power to impose by stealth what Australians explicitly refused by vote.

This is not democracy — it’s subversion.

Australia has always recognised and respected Australia’s Indigenous. Their heritage and culture form part of our national story. But equal respect does not mean unequal rights.

A democracy cannot function when laws and privileges are granted on the basis of race.

Our forefathers worked for a system where all citizens stand equal before the law, regardless of ancestry, creed, or origin. That principle is now under threat — not from foreign powers or economic collapse — but from our own elected leaders, who seem determined to divide the nation along racial lines.

If this “People’s Assembly” becomes law, Victoria will become a testing ground — a template for Labor governments nationwide.
It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Australian democracy hangs in the balance.

The Victorian Opposition must do more than simply oppose this bill. They must pledge to repeal it entirely if elected. Anything less would be a betrayal of the democratic will of Victorians.

Australians have spoken once. We may need to speak again — louder this time — to defend the simple but sacred truth that in a democracy, all citizens are equal before the law.

Peace in Gaza, Rage in the West — What Does That Tell You?

When a real ceasefire arrives, food flows, hostages are freed, and civilians begin to rebuild, how do you expect people who genuinely care about human suffering to react? You’d expect relief, gratitude, cheering — hope. Instead, Western streets are filled with the same crowds who have protested for two years, not dancing in the streets for the Palestinians’ good fortune, but still screaming hatred at Jews.

That observation isn’t political nitpicking. It’s the most straightforward honesty: if your cause was the suffering of Gazans, then the moment Gaza ceases to be a battlefield should be a moment of celebration. The fact that large, visible demonstrations did not turn joyful — and in many places escalated into calls for violence and the harassment of innocent Jews — tells you everything you need to know about what those protests were really about.

The contrast is stark.

Reporters on the ground note that ordinary Gazans — the non-Hamas civilians whose lives were shattered — are relieved, accepting aid, and returning home. The UN says food supplies are arriving. Families are reuniting. That is precisely what “pro-humanitarian” movements should want.

Compare that to the reaction from the Western protest movement. Rather than celebrating the end of hostilities or the release of hostages, many of the same activists continued to march, chant, and engage in behaviour that crossed the line into antisemitic intimidation: harassment at vigils, violent incidents, attempts to disrupt Jewish life, and open calls for the destruction of Israel. These actions are not the work of people whose primary concern is humanitarian relief. They’re the actions of an ideological movement that has long been more interested in vilifying Israel — and, by extension, Jews — than in helping Palestinians.

Violence and intimidation: not accidental

This is not abstract theory. The past two years saw embassy staff shot at, firebombs, attacks on synagogues and Jewish community centres, and even incidents where Jews were physically assaulted during vigils. These are not “excesses” by a few bad apples; they are the predictable outgrowth of a movement that wraps itself in a moral cloak but traffics in demonisation.

Those who are sincere about Palestinian welfare would be pushing for reconstruction, safe passage for aid, and rebuilding schools and hospitals. Instead, too many of the loudest voices tried to make political capital out of suffering — and, when the suffering subsided, they kept shouting the same hatred. That persistence exposes their real aim: not peace, but the delegitimisation and, in some cases, eradication of the Jewish state.

The moral failure of performative outrage

There’s a pattern here that should alarm any decent person. A movement professes sympathy for the weak, then refuses to rejoice when the weak are helped. It protests the presence of military action, but not the practice of terrorism that precipitated it. It claims occupation as the issue, yet calls openly for the destruction of a people. That pattern suggests the moral frame was never about rescue or rights; it was about ideology and grievance.

And because this movement operates under the guise of activism, its more extreme elements are shielded — celebrated even — by parts of the media and campus culture. That cover makes it easier for antisemitic language and tactics to spread, and harder to call them out without being branded a censor.

What now? Accountability, not appeasement

The peace deal should compel us to do three things:

1. Call out hypocrisy. If you marched in the name of Palestinian welfare, you should be marching now to rebuild hospitals and schools. If instead you’re still chanting genocidal slogans, you deserve to be exposed for what you are.

2. Protect Jewish communities. Free speech is vital, but speech that incites violence or targets innocent people must be restrained through law enforcement and public pressure. There must be zero tolerance for threats, harassment, and arson.

3. Re-focus on genuine aid. Real supporters of human rights should insist that reconstruction and humanitarian assistance take precedence — not political theatre — and be measured by results on the ground, not hashtags.

Conclusion: This was never about Gaza

The peace deal has done the one thing that words and theory could not: it removed the plausible moral cover that those protesters relied upon. When the original claimed grievance is alleviated and the chanting continues unchanged — when the people the protesters claim to support are themselves relieved — the truth is visible. The movement’s energy is not channelled into healing; it is channelled into vilifying a people and delegitimising a state.

If you legitimately cared about Palestinian civilians, you’d be celebrating or quietly rebuilding with them. If you’re still on the streets calling for the destruction of Jews, stop pretending you were ever marching for humanitarian reasons. The peace deal proves it.

Here is a short video making similar arguments from a US centric viewpoint. 

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 42, 2025)

 

   

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Price of Tolerating the Intolerant

• Humanoid Robots:The Last Industrial Revolution
  
• Could Lithium Be The Key To Reversing Alzheimers
  
• Against All Odds: Trump's Peace Plan Brought Hostages Home
  
• Peace in Gaza, Protests in the West - What Does That Tell You?
  
• Say NO To The Return Of The Voice By Stealth
  
• Time to bring the Media to Account for Deliberate Mistruths
  
• Robots come in all sizes, have a look at this ad for a future 'Robot Phone"

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

Against all odds: Trump's Peace Plan Brought Hostages Home

Despite the overwhelming odds and scepticism from every corner of the globe, the Trump 20-point peace plan for Gaza is holding — and Hamas is already completing the first phase. The handover of 20 live hostages from Hamas is a monumental moment in the complex and often treacherous path toward peace. In Israel, much of Gaza (the non-Hamas-loving Gazans), and much of the world, people are celebrating. This agreement — which seemed impossible just a few months ago — is a testament to the power of diplomacy, resolve, and strategic negotiation.

But how did we get here? How did a plan that seemed unachievable come together? What went on behind the scenes to achieve this stunning outcome?

The plan itself is intricate, with many traps. It’s easy to overlook the genius of placing the release of all hostages at the start of the agreement. After all, this was one of Israel’s primary war goals, and it’s a significant symbolic moment — one that demonstrates that Hamas, once a formidable force, has been defeated. Had Hamas maintained its hold on the hostages, it would have signalled that it still held one of its most significant weapons against Israel. Their willingness to release hostages suggests they no longer hold the upper hand.

This is where the mechanics behind the scenes come into play. Trump’s success in isolating Hamas from its key backers, particularly Iran, Hezbollah, and the Qataris, was critical to the agreement's success.

Hamas Isolated: The Key to the Agreement

To force Hamas to give up its leverage (the hostages) and agree to disarm, it had to be isolated from its backers. Let's break down how that happened:

1. Iran’s Toothless Support: After recent attacks, it’s clear that Iran has been exposed as largely toothless. While Iran has always been a key supporter of Hamas, its influence has significantly waned. Israel’s ability to dismantle Iran’s military influence in the region — particularly with Hezbollah's defeat — meant that Hamas no longer had a powerful shield protecting it.

2. Hezbollah’s Defeat: Hezbollah, another major backer of Hamas, was defeated by Israel. This weakened Hamas’s military position and further isolated them from their regional support network.

3. Qatar’s Duplicity: Qatar has long been a tricky player in the region. On the surface, Qatar has maintained a supportive stance toward both Hamas and Israel, all the while subtly preaching Islamism via Al Jazeera. For years, Qatar has hosted Hamas leaders, giving them a platform for their cause. Yet, Israel’s recent strikes against Hamas leaders in Qatar sent a strong message: Qatar itself was vulnerable. No amount of diplomatic gymnastics could shield Qatar from the reach of Israel — especially without the backing of the U.S.

4. Turkey’s Complicated Role: Turkey, a NATO member, has long been anti-Israel while trying to gain influence in Syria. Despite its NATO status, Turkey has hosted Hamas leaders, adding to the diplomatic complexity. However, Turkey’s desire for advanced weaponry — which they had been seeking from the U.S. — likely played a key role in moving them toward an agreement. Trump’s deals with Turkey, along with strategic arms offers, may have helped tip the scales.

How Trump Achieved This Isolation

How did Trump manage to pull all this off? The answer lies in hard-nosed diplomacy, coupled with a carrot-and-stick approach. No doubt, Trump’s deals offered tangible benefits to both Qatar and Turkey:

• Turkey: In exchange for cutting ties with Hamas, Turkey will likely receive access to advanced weaponry — something they had long coveted. This was a win-win scenario: Turkey’s national security concerns were addressed, while Hamas lost a significant sponsor.

• Qatar: Qatar’s situation was more delicate. It had long supported Hamas but also had a large U.S. military base and close ties to Washington. Trump likely recognised this leverage point and pushed Qatar into abandoning Hamas. But the final catalyst was Israel’s action against Hamas leaders in Qatar. This exposed Qatar’s vulnerability — it was no longer safe to host Hamas leaders. The combination of Israel’s bold move and Trump’s offer of protection likely convinced Qatar that it had to choose between its relationship with Hamas and its future security, especially with the U.S. as a more reliable partner.

Speculation on the Deal’s Success

We don’t have all the details, and it will be some time before the whole picture is revealed. But based on the pieces we can see, it’s clear that Trump’s diplomacy, in partnership with Israel’s strategic military actions, created the conditions for a breakthrough that few thought possible. The good guy/bad guy dynamic worked, with Israel playing the strong hand to expose vulnerabilities, and Trump providing the necessary assurances to key players like Qatar and Turkey.

The Trump 20-point peace plan could go down as one of the most surprising successes in modern diplomacy. While it’s not over yet, and there are many complexities to be worked out, what we’re seeing now — the release of hostages and the defeat of Hamas — is a testament to the effectiveness of bold, strategic moves.

Conclusion: A Monumental Achievement

At this stage, the peace deal has already achieved more than most would have ever thought possible. The release of hostages and the isolation of Hamas from its major supporters show the strength of this agreement. While we don’t know precisely how the subsequent phases will unfold, it’s clear that without Trump’s diplomatic efforts and Israel’s military prowess, this success would not have been possible.

Thank you, Mr Trump. Thank you, Israel.