During a stay in Turkey, I found myself doing something I normally don’t do when I travel: watching quite a lot of local television. Not because I understood Turkish. Quite the opposite.

Whenever a news item caught my attention, I recorded a few minutes, transcribed what I heard, and translated it. At first, it was purely practical. I simply wanted to know what they were saying. But after doing this a few times, I realized I was watching something more interesting. I wasn’t just translating the news anymore. I was watching a way of seeing the world being constructed.

Israel was the most obvious example.

One report from Gaza covered an Israeli strike in which Palestinians had been killed. But the report did not simply begin by telling viewers what had happened. It opened with a statement: “Israel continues the genocide.”

That difference matters. Before the viewer knew where the strike had taken place, what had been targeted, how many people had been killed, or what Israel said had happened, the interpretation had already been delivered. First the verdict. Then the facts.

In other reports I heard the expression soykırımcı İsrail: “genocidal Israel.” The adjective was no longer describing a particular action. It was defining the actor.

Then I came across a different mechanism.

Turkish television was reporting on a massive wave of migrants trying to enter Ceuta, the Spanish territory in North Africa. At the same time, relations between Spain and Israel were badly strained over Gaza and Spain’s position on the Palestinian issue.

Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon had criticized Spain, essentially suggesting that instead of lecturing Israel, it should deal with its own migration problems. Spain’s Transport Minister Óscar Puente responded with a suggestive line: “Everything is starting to become clear.”

Up to that point, we had facts.

Then came the question: Was Israel behind the wave of migrants heading for Ceuta?

And that was when something clicked. There was no need to say that Israel had organized anything. There was certainly no need to prove it. You only had to arrange the pieces in the right order.

Spain supports the Palestinian cause. Relations with Israel deteriorate. A migration crisis erupts. An Israeli diplomat makes a provocative comment. A Spanish minister replies that “everything is starting to become clear.” Then the journalist asks whether Israel might be behind it.

The viewer finishes the sentence the journalist never has to say.

That is considerably more sophisticated than a lie. A false number can be corrected. A manipulated photograph can be exposed. An invented quotation can be checked. But what happens when every individual piece is true, and what is questionable is the connection being created between them?

A little later I encountered a third mechanism. This time it was a chronology of Iran’s nuclear program.

UN sanctions. Negotiations. International inspections. Uranium enrichment. The 2015 nuclear deal. The US withdrawal during Donald Trump’s first presidency. Sabotage against Iranian nuclear facilities.........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)