How ex-US, Israeli intelligence workers are writing ‘news’ the world reads

Earlier this month, the streets of Amsterdam bore witness to a disturbing chain of events: Israeli football fans, angered by their team’s loss, violently rampaged through the city, clashing with bystanders, vandalising property, and setting a Palestinian flag alight.

Yet, what should have been an exposé on mob violence became a glaring example of how narratives are carefully crafted and controlled in major media.

The New York Times framed the incident as antisemitic aggression, using a video claiming to show Israeli fans being attacked — one that was removed after the video's creator publicly clarified it actually depicted Israeli supporters chasing a man.

Curiously, the paper showed little interest in unpacking the widespread confusion that a straightforward, moment-by-moment visual investigation could have helped resolve.

A November 18 report by Electronic Intifada revealed that a proposal for a visual investigation by award-winning New York Times reporter Christiaan Triebert to expose the truth of the incident was axed, with senior Times official Charlie Stadtlander justifying the cancellation with an arguably dubious explanation.

In a follow-up email addressed to Electronic Intifada, Stadtlander dismissed the allegations of bias, claiming Triebert’s work had been integrated into another article.

Only, the article he linked, titled “Chaos, Provocations and Violence: How Attacks on Israeli Soccer Fans Unfolded,” was one of the many NYT reports downplaying the aggressive actions of Israeli hooligans during the incident.

Yet, perhaps this is unsurprising, given Charlie Stadtlander brings a background as a former NSA spokesperson and US Army Cyber Command officer — roles not exactly associated with promoting transparency.

Stadtlander’s role as director of external communications at the Times ostensibly does not involve editorial decisions.

Yet, to some, it’s reasonable to ask whether Stadtlander's skills in controlling narratives for the NSA align too comfortably with the needs of a newsroom that balances journalistic integrity and corporate-state relationships.

“All of this raises obvious questions,” Jon Schwarz from the Intercept observed in a March 2023 report.

“Is being the spokesperson for the nation’s most prestigious newspaper a completely different job from being the spokesperson for the NSA? Or are they pretty much the same job? Most importantly, are the perspectives of the two institutions fundamentally different — or are they, in more ways than you might imagine, fundamentally the same?”

Former Israeli spies in US media

The controversy surrounding Stadtlander is not an isolated case. Other media outlets, including CNN, have welcomed individuals with ties to Israeli intelligence agencies into their ranks.

On October 16, an investigative report by Mintpress exposed the infiltration of American newsrooms by individuals with direct links to Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyber intelligence unit.

Unit 8200, often described as the Israeli equivalent of the NSA, has been linked to mass surveillance and controversial cyber operations around the world, including the pager attacks in Lebanon.

The report cites several figures, including Barak Ravid of Axios, who previously served in Unit 8200 and the Israeli Defense Forces reserves; Shachar Peled, a former CNN producer with a background in Unit 8200 and Shin Bet; and Anat Schwartz, an ex-Israeli Air Force Intelligence officer who co-authored the controversial “Screams without words” at The New York Times.

Another notable figure is Tal Heinrich, a former Unit 8200 agent who worked for CNN’s Jerusalem bureau and is now the official spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That is the same bureau revealed in January to be the mandatory review point for all CNN coverage related to Israel-Palestine.

In a January 2024 report, The Intercept quoted a CNN staff member as saying: “Every single Israel-Palestine-related line for reporting must seek approval from the [Jerusalem] bureau — or, when the bureau is not staffed, from a select few handpicked by the bureau and senior management — from which lines are most often edited with a very specific nuance.”

All of this raises fundamental questions about the role of journalism in a democracy.

If the press is to act as a check on power, how can it fulfil this mandate when its ranks are populated by those who have once worked to shield that power from scrutiny?