Truth, Media & the War on Iran

We reject war. But for wars to end, journalists must work without fear or intimidation, and media ownership can’t become a means of control, writes Ramzy Baroud.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth during a press briefing at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2026. (DoW /Milton Hamilton)

By Ramzy Baroud
Common Dreams
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to have little patience for questions that do not conform to his preferred style of declaring unsubstantiated victories, whether against South Americans or in the Middle East.

In a charged press conference on March 13, Hegseth did more than attack journalists for questioning his unverified claims about the course of the war in the Middle East. He singled out CNN, introducing a troubling dimension to the conversation. “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” he said.

Ellison, a close ally of President Donald Trump and a strong supporter of Israel, is widely considered the front-runner to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company that owns CNN. If there was any lingering doubt that such acquisitions are driven by political and ideological considerations, Hegseth’s remarks dispelled it.

Such statements reflect a broader shift in how the media is viewed by segments of the U.S. ruling class, particularly under the Trump administration.

During both of his presidential terms, Trump has invested much of his public discourse not in unifying the nation but in deploying deeply hostile language against journalists who question his policies, rhetoric, or political conduct.

“The fake news media is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Feb. 18, repeating a phrase that has become central to his political lexicon.

Yet American media entered this confrontation with little public trust to begin with, though for reasons that have little to do with Trump’s own political agenda.

A 2025 Gallup poll found that only 28 percent of Americans trust the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, one of the lowest levels recorded in recent decades.

Historically, this mistrust has co-existed with Americans’ skepticism toward their government — any government, regardless of political orientation. But what is unfolding today appears qualitatively different.

The long-standing alignment between political power, corporate interests and media narratives now seems to be fracturing under the weight of widespread public distrust.

Israeli Media Mirrors Government’s Militant Posture

In Israel, however, the situation takes a different form. Mainstream media often mirrors the militant posture of the government itself, translating political belligerence into broad public support for war — whether in GazaLebanon, Iran, or wherever Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chooses to expand the battlefield.

Public opinion data illustrates this dynamic clearly. A survey released on March 4 by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 82 percent of the Israeli public supported the ongoing military campaign against Iran, including 93 percent of Israeli Jews. [“Those are North Korean numbers,” Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy told Democracy Now!]

Such figures reflect a media and political environment in which dissenting voices remain marginal and frequently isolated.

“With this kind of media, there’s no point in fighting for a free press, because the media itself is not on the side of freedom,” Levy wrote in Haaretz on March 12.

undefined

Gideon Levy, Bordeaux, France, September 2025. (Girrit, Own Work, CC0-1.0)

While there is little that can realistically be done to shift the dominant Israeli narrative from within Israel itself, journalists elsewhere carry an immense responsibility.

They must adhere to the most basic standards of journalistic integrity now more than ever.

This responsibility does not apply only to journalists in the United States or across the Western world. It applies equally to journalists throughout the Middle East.

After all, it is their region that is being drawn into wars not of its own making, and it is their societies that have the most to gain from a just and lasting peace.

Over the past two years — particularly during Israel’s genocide on Gaza — we have seen just how difficult it has become to convey reality from the ground. Journalists have confronted censorship, propaganda campaigns, algorithmic suppression, intimidation and outright violence.

Yet the consequences of this information crisis are far from abstract. When truth disappears, civilians suffer in silence. Political decisions are justified through distorted narratives. Wars themselves become easier to prolong when the public is denied the facts necessary to challenge them.

For years, many of us warned that if the promoters of war and chaos were not restrained, the entire region could descend into a cycle of deliberate destabilization. If this trajectory continues, shared aspirations will suffer for generations. Collective prosperity — already fragile — could be permanently undermined.

This struggle is not merely about journalistic integrity, nor even about truth telling as an ethical imperative. It is about the fate of entire societies whose futures are deeply interconnected. 

Governments across the Arab and Muslim world warned against the military adventurism now engulfing the Middle East long before the current escalation. Their warnings went largely unheeded, and the consequences are now unfolding.

At this moment, journalists, intellectuals, and people of conscience must speak the truth in all its manifestations, using every available platform and opportunity.

For wars to end, truth must be spoken openly and without hesitation. Journalists must be allowed to work without fear or intimidation. Media ownership must not become a mechanism of control and censorship.

Politicians and generals risk reputational damage, the loss of office, or perhaps the disappearance of a generous holiday bonus if their wars fail. For the people of the Middle East — and for all victims of war — the stakes are far greater. They risk losing families, economies, homes, and the very possibility of a stable future.

For that reason, gratitude is owed to courageous individuals who continue to speak truth to power; to those who insist on unity during moments deliberately engineered to produce division; and to those who understand that honest journalism is not merely a profession.

It is a moral obligation.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a widely published and translated author, an internationally syndicated columnist and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015), and was a non-resident scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB. Visit his website.

This article is from Common Dreams.

Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

9 comments for “Truth, Media & the War on Iran

  1. Rhetoric Y. Really
    March 31, 2026 at 10:38

    The truth is where ?
    Its a good place to start ?
    Then your alreday there ?
    Is it here ?

  2. Eric Arthur Blair
    March 25, 2026 at 16:10

    Two ballistic missiles were fired at the US base in Diego Garcia, one which supposedly went astray and the other which was suppisedly intercepted ie. no damage was done.
    The first party to announce this news was not the Iranians, not the US, not the British (who “own” the island).
    It was the Israelis.
    SatanYahoo (or his AI double) promptly commented that Iran was responsible, saying it proved Iranian missile range could now target Europe and the Europeans must therefore now join in the fight against Iran.
    Rutte the puta, head of NATO and quisling bootlicker of daddy Trump, said he was considering it.
    Iran categorically denied they had anything to do with those missiles.
    hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsIRcsHB7c
    Guess what? Turns out those missiles were fired by an Israeli submarine in the Indian ocean as a false flag effort to pull NATO into the war.
    hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0c8ziZebvY (around 10 minutes).
    Nice try, you children of a false god, you spawn of Satan. The world is wise to your duplicity.
    hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCmumo1oNg0 (around 35 minutes)

    • Eric Arthur Blair
      March 26, 2026 at 23:03

      Rutte the puta actually bought into the blatant hasbara, keen to sacrifice European lives for the YankeeZioNazi agenda
      hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwZilJNFNPw
      I understand if putas are offended by being compared with Rutte.

  3. foster goodwill
    March 25, 2026 at 13:39

    Beautifully put, thank you!

  4. pascuaL
    March 25, 2026 at 09:57

    ¿En qué ha quedado el “cuanto poder0”?

  5. March 24, 2026 at 19:40

    To make an analogy to circumstances in Peru under Alberto Fujimori and his intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos (of “Vladi-videos” infamy) during the late 1990s, CBS News and its “60 Minutes” program under the Ellisons are evolving into the US version of Frecuencia Latina and its “Contrapunto” program (inasmuch as they were not already), and meanwhile, the likes of Rümeysa Öztürk have come close to becoming the latter-day equivalent of Baruch Ivcher (ironically enough).

    For their part, CNN and NBC News already appear to be doing their best to implicitly promote uniformity among Trump’s rank-and-file voters and magnify social polarization to stymie the development of an anti-war coalition even before a formal takeover by the Ellisons, given the research design of the recent poll that they did their best to emphasize (“CNN’s 100% MAGA Poll Sparks Backlash,” MSN, March 19, 2026).

    Specifically, what are the semantics of defining “MAGA” according to those who conducted that poll, and to what extent did they make this semantic definition unambiguously clear to those they polled? Do those who count as “MAGA” merely consist of his supporters who have remained obsequiously loyal to Trump’s cult of personality irrespective of any of his rhetorical and policy vacillations (and possibly some bloodthirsty “Never Trump” Republicans, neoconservative-leaning people, and warmongering maximalists who did not support any of his campaigns, but have abruptly and pragmatically shifted to singing Trump’s praises now that he has given them the war they always wanted), or is it the many populist voters attracted to his cosmetic anti-war posturing (which, to be clear, always rang hollow to me even back in 2016, to say nothing of 2020 and 2024 after he had already assassinated Qassem Soleimani, launched missile strikes against Syria that even Barack Obama and James “Not A Slam Dunk” relented from, escalated a “hybrid war” against Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela, provided offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama had also avoided sending, etc.) who have now turned against him for that, among other things?

  6. Decoy0614
    March 24, 2026 at 16:36

    This war, like the war in Ukraine, is about the Western Empire remaining in control of the world. China, Russia, and Iran represent a risk to the Empire and the Empire will do almost anything to retain the status quo.

    • WillD
      March 25, 2026 at 01:56

      So far, it’s 2 failures out of 3. Ukraine=failure, Iran=failure, and soon China=failure. Trump & Hegseth are both so unhinged that they might even be dumb enough to launch an attack on China before their other 2 failures become too glaringly obvious.

      I’d like to imagine that Russia and China have a cunning plan to lure the already severely weakened US into a conflict with China and thus make sure it loses so badly that it is unable to attack any other country.

      • Russell
        March 25, 2026 at 10:53

        Define failure. Wars are a raging success for the profiteers, the point of all these excursions.

Comments are closed.