Who do you want telling you what news you need to know?

When it happens once, it is news, sort-of, but it appears that when it happens twice, the second time is no longer news citizens need to know. If it does not fit what the the mainstream news outlets' powers-that-be want you to know, that is. The mainstream news outlets tell you what they think you need to pay attention to, and in that way you are left ignorant of other events. Thus you may base your opinions on pre-filtered (dare I say, censored) items they choose to present to you. Here is a case in point: Every time there is an anti-Bibi demonstration, it gets lots of air time and news-site space in the mass media. I did a Google search in Hebrew for  "demonstrations" and restricted it to News items. I got lots of articles on anti-Bibi demonstrations. Here are two that make it seem as if demonstrating against Bibi is the only game in town:

1. In Calcalist -- An evening of protests in Caesaria, Jerusalem and on the bridges: "It's a war against corruption"
2. In Globus -- Demonstrations around the country against Netanyahu; About 15,000 protestors on Balfour.

And it appears that as long as these demonstrations last, they are legitimate fodder for the mainstream media machine. Here is one in ynet that opens with: "This is the seventh week in a row of demonstrations". I suggest you open it just to see the sheer number of photos published in it and tell me what kind of impression that leaves with the reader. Must be important, eh? Seven straight weeks of demonstrations in the news. And who are demonstrating? Many many people on a number of positions on the political map. Regardless of the identities of the demonstrators, these anti-Bibi protests suit the leftist agenda to a tee. Now let us compare that with the demonstrations against the Supreme Court. Rightwing demonstrations.They began demonstrating two weeks ago on the street in front of the house of Supreme Court President Esther Hayut.   Well, they should not be restricted to rightwingers because when the Supreme Court acts as an activist court, it should be of interest to all. While now it generally rules in favour of leftwing ideology, who is to say that that may not change in the future whereby the court may one day rule in correspondance to rightwing ideology. Neither of these is acceptable. The court needs to rule on the basis of laws on the books and not according to the personal ideologies of its judges.