As populist campaigns against the media become increasingly common around the world, it is ever more urgent to explore how journalists adopt and respond to them. Which strategies have journalists developed to maintain the public's trust, and what may be the implications for democracy? These questions are addressed using a thematic analysis of forty-five semistructured interviews with leading Israeli journalists who have been publicly targeted by Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The article suggests that while most interviewees asserted that adherence to objective reporting was the best response to antimedia populism, many of them have in fact applied a “strategic bias” to their reporting, intentionally leaning to the Right in an attempt to refute the accusations of media bias to the Left. This strategy was shaped by interviewees' perceived helplessness versus Israel's Prime Minister and his extensive use of social media, a phenomenon called here “the influence of presumed media impotence.” Finally, this article points at the potential ramifications of strategic bias for journalism and democracy. Drawing on Hallin's Spheres theory, it claims that the strategic bias might advance Right-wing populism at present, while also narrowing the sphere of legitimate controversy—thus further restricting press freedom—in the future.

随着反对媒体的民粹主义运动在世界范围内变得越来越普遍，探索记者如何接受和回应这些运动变得越来越紧迫。记者制定了哪些策略来维持公众的信任，这对民主有何影响？这些问题通过对以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡公开攻击的主要以色列记者的 45 次半结构化采访进行专题分析来解决。文章指出，虽然大多数受访者声称坚持客观报道是对反媒体民粹主义的最佳回应，但他们中的许多人实际上在报道中应用了“战略偏见”，故意偏向右翼，试图反驳媒体的指责。媒体偏左。这一策略是由受访者对以色列总理的无助感和他对社交媒体的广泛使用形成的，这种现象在此称为“假定媒体无能的影响”。最后，本文指出了新闻业和民主的战略偏见的潜在后果。借鉴哈林的领域理论，它声称战略偏见可能会在目前推动右翼民粹主义，同时也会缩小合法争议的范围——从而进一步限制新闻自由——在未来。