December 27, 2012

MEDIA COMMENT: Bennett, the media and disobeying orders

Posted in Media at 11:24 pm by yisraelmedad

Bennett, the media and disobeying orders


Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi party has only gained from this saga. The true loser is the public.

If we were political campaign advisers, and not columnists commenting on the media’s behavior, we might have warned Naftali Bennett to beware of Nissim Mishal and his interview program, Mishal Hot, on Channel 2.

We would have warned him that Mishal is far from being a fair and even-handed interviewer. Back in June 2000, Danna Winkler, writing in The Seventh Eye, was critical of Mishal, noting that he turned the studio “into a battlefield where there is but one winner, the non-neutral moderator and also the judge.” In addition, she quoted Ma’ariv’s media critic Meir Schnitzer as warning of Mihal’s tendency “to create fictitious provocations.”

Ynet’s critic, Ra’anan Shaked, wrote in July 2005 of his revulsion after watching Mishal’s treatment, together with his editor, the late Yisrael Segal, of the infamous “Pulsa D’Nura” curse ceremony. “What is left of their journalistic prestige just dripped away,” he wrote.

Mishal’s reputation as a sensationalist rather than a professional has for years been problematic even among his fellow media buddies.

Thursday’s program with Bennett caused Ma’ariv’s current media critic Elkanah Schor to observe that “Mishal has a more fundamental personality problem. Mishal suffers from distress. When you do not have the argumentative abilities of London and Kirschenbaum, lack the depth of Ilana Dayan, the courage of Raviv Drucker and the warmth of Amnon Levy, you’re in distress and you shout.”

In the show with Bennett, as may be ascertained from the video of the interview, Mishal was as usual brash, aggressive and provocative, incessantly interrupting Bennett.

Bennett could have simply announced that if he was going to be denied the common courtesy of responding to questions in a manner which would permit the viewers an opportunity to actually hear him, he would not be a party to the circus atmosphere Mishal created in the studio.

We would have suggested that, if asked about the topic of soldiers refusing to obey orders, he should reply that it is his intention to join the next government so as to make sure that no further evacuations will take place, and then not to talk about refusing commands but about refusing to continue the discussion.

We would also have brought to his attention the fact that actually, this whole issue was already dealt with in 1995, in this statement: “I say that a soldier must obey orders. And if a soldier feels that the command given him is against his conscience, he personally, and I emphasize – in person – should appear before his commander, tell him so and be prepared to bear the consequences…. If he feels he was given a command that is against his conscience, then he personally – it is not a matter of rebellion – … appears before his commander, explains it to him and will be prepared to bear the consequences.”

Those were the words of Ariel Sharon, who not only served as a general, a member of the IDF’s high command, but as minister of defense and also prime minister. Bennett, in his press conference the following day, where he attempted to answer the outcry raised by his political opponents, and especially Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, could have noted that in September 2004, a certain Prof. Benzion Netanyahu, the prime minister’s late father, had signed a petition calling for refusal to participate in the disengagement efforts.

We are now a few days after the Thursday night interview that has generated so much media hype. Was the media’s coverage of the interview and the ensuing brouhaha professional and ethical? Meirav Michaeli, a prominent left-wing Labor candidate, also called for refusal to enlist. The contrast between the frenzy of media fury when dealing with Bennett and the apologetic and even sometimes favorable attitude toward Michaeli is striking.

She was essentially given a free pass, by virtue of the media’s silence, a silence which has become deafening, proving once again that our media does not understand what fairness means. The media’s silence on Michaeli’s attitude is irresponsible, and in contrast to the accepted notion that the press is a staple of democracy, actually harms it.

Politicians in the past have been outspoken in favor of refusal to serve when they believe that their personal ideological interests are threatened. One striking example is Yossi Sarid, who later became a minister of education. Another minister of education, Shulamit Aloni, spoke glowingly decades ago of the “big soul” of those who refuse to serve. Yet the media did very little to put Bennett’s stand in perspective.

To be fair, not all political correspondents joined in the anti-Bennett fray. Some noted, even if pro forma, that other parties and politicians were being ignored by the Likud in its attack on Bennett’s “refusal to serve” interview.

Geula Even on Channel 1 on Sunday evening showed a clip of Deputy Minister Ya’acov Litzman announcing this past week that if the government pursued its policy to force haredi (ultra-Orthodox) men to enlist into the IDF, he would call upon them to refuse to cooperate. Dana Weiss of Channel 2 was objective enough to point out that Bennett, for all intents and purposes, had retreated from his position while managing to exploit the media focus to his advantage.

On Channel 2, Amit Segal enumerated the candidates now running in the elections to the Knesset in other parties who have called for a refusal to serve but were somehow “missed” by the rest of the media. He mentioned Likud Beytenu’s Uzi Landau, Tzipi Hotovely and Moshe Feiglin, noting that only Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid and the Pirate party were free of members supporting refusal.

Why is it, though, that the Bennett story became so prominent, with so many zeroing in on the Bennett statement? Given the media’s anti-Netanyahu bias, is it not odd that they would lend him support in his election campaign? Is it the issue of refusal that bothers them, or the fact that the Bayit Yehudi party, in alliance with the National Union, is simply more of an anathema to the left-leaning media elites? Are they defending the law, the army and social solidarity or are they promoting their own political agenda? It is a given that election campaigns are robust, noisy and even rambunctious. It is the height of the celebration of democracy.

Information overflow and hype are to be expected. The media’s central role, acting as the agent for the exchange of political messages, is essential and cannot be understated.

However, if the media decides through collusion, participation or prevention to deceive voters by acting unethically, unprofessionally or even illegally then it is serving no one but itself.

As of the writing of this article, it would seem, at least according to the polls, that in fact Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi party has only gained from this saga. But the true loser is the public. The media has again largely shown that it cannot be trusted to give everyone a fair shake. Democracy urgently needs a vehicle which would ensure that during the election campaign period, the media does not use its power unfairly.


Read Dror Eydar.


December 20, 2012

MEDIA COMMENT: Channel 10 versus Israel’s democracy

Posted in Media at 12:42 am by yisraelmedad


Media Comment: Channel 10 versus Israel’s democracy, By YISRAEL MEDAD AND ELI POLLAK
Channel 10 had no respect for the democratic process until now. Should the Knesset then save it today?

Israel’s Media Watch petitioned the High Court for Justice yesterday, requesting it halt all Knesset legislation concerning Channel 10 television.

IMW’s main assertion is that, in accord with the instructions of the attorney general, the government should not undertake any last-minute legislation during an election campaign.

If the court upholds our request, Channel 10 will have to close down. This will not only leave the hundreds of employees of the channel jobless, but also temporarily deprive Israel of an important media outlet, outcomes which have been described as harmful to Israeli democracy.

Channel 10 has become a major point of contention in the election campaign, with opposition parties lambasting the government for allowing this situation to develop. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been accused of carrying out a personal vendetta against Channel 10 due to the defamatory documentaries against him and his family aired on the channel.

Israel’s Media Watch is an organization which has led the call for free skies and pluralism in Israel’s media. In fact, Eli Pollak was a member of the Peled Commission, which in 1997 paved the way not only for the creation of Channel 10, but also for more recent legislation supporting an open skies policy for our media.

Why then is IMW now petitioning the High Court of Justice in an attempt to put a stop to Channel 10? Wouldn’t the right step be to encourage the Knesset to extend Channel 10’s lifetime for another year? As youngsters, we are taught that the end does not justify the means. Increasing media pluralism is an important goal, but we believe Israel’s democracy and the rule of law come first. It is the democratic system which safeguards the freedom of the press. If the democratic system itself is not respected, and if the law is systematically violated, the ultimate result will be the curtailment of freedom of the press.

Quite some time ago, the right-wing Arutz 7 radio station, which for many years operated without a permit, was closed down by the Supreme Court, even though the Knesset legalized it.

The court overruled the legislature. At that time, neither the court nor the left-wing political parties (it was actually Meretz leader Yossi Sarid who spearheaded the case against Arutz 7) thought media pluralism was more important than the law.

The court found that the Knesset’s legal process was flawed, so it annulled the legislation. The heads of the radio channel were found guilty of violating the law and sentenced accordingly.

Let us now consider some of the history of Channel 10. It started broadcasting in January 2002. From the very beginning, its license stipulated that it would broadcast from Jerusalem, with the Knesset’s intent being to strengthen our capital.

But from the outset, the channel’s owners took up office space in Givatayim, and to this day the channel’s base of operations is not in Jerusalem.

DURING THE past year, when the channel’s financial difficulties once again became headline news, the pressure on the owners to move the channel to Jerusalem increased. Their response was to rent a studio in Jerusalem, move the news presenter to this studio but continue to base the news center itself in Givatayim. The ridiculousness of this situation caused Ya’akov Eilon, for many years the anchorman for Channel 10 news, to resign.

The channel’s refusal to honor its administrative and financial commitments is well known. It has been a perennial scofflaw. In July 2009, the Finance and Communications Ministries reached an agreement with the channel to defer payment of its debts until 2012. In December 2011 the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee refused to give the channel an additional extension.

We all know what happens if we do not pay our own private debts to the gas, phone or electricity companies. But when it comes to the media, the law and signed agreements are not important? Insisting commitments be met is considered undemocratic? In fact, the government’s current decision undertake special legislation to prolong Channel 10’s operations and undermine our democratic system is due to nothing less than blackmail. The law prohibits any commercial TV channel from using its broadcasts to further its own agenda. Yet the channel has continuously agitated against the government during the past few weeks. It is no secret Israel will be holding elections in January, or that anyone who dares go against the channel is at the mercy of our media. The resulting pressure on politicians with regard to this issue is unbearable – but also unforgivable.

Only last week, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin publicly announced he would not allow any further legislation before the elections, and rightly so. The present government is, as the attorney general pointed out, only a caretaker government and should not undertake any steps which are significant in the long term. But public blackmail pays: This past Monday, the government decided to pass new and special legislation, and Rivlin will convene the Knesset today in order to provide the goods.

But what about the future of the employees of the channel? Do we really want them to go jobless? Sometimes there is no choice. Let’s be honest, what is worse: having a few hundred employees receive unemployment benefits for a few months or, for example, throwing eight thousand people out of their homes? The 2005 expulsion from Gaza, termed the disengagement plan, was deemed necessary in pursuit of a higher aim: peace. It was justified as being a fulfillment of the rule of law after the Knesset voted for it and the High Court of Justice affirmed the legality of the legislation. Over 8,000 people suffered.

Many youths had their lives altered to the extent of causing them much mental and psychological damage for which the state is still paying in terms of social services budgets. But now, the rule of law should be ignored, just because the result would be a temporary downturn in the media business? Losing a job is heart-wrenching, but unfortunately it is part of life, as are losing money invested in the financial markets and many other mishaps. Society should do the utmost to prevent such misery, but there are limits.

The owners and managers of Channel 10 have cynically used the misfortune of some of their employees in an attempt to avoid paying their commitments to the state. If they are allowed to do so, why shouldn’t Channel 2 do the same? If Channel 10 is given concessions, Channel 2 justifiably will – and does – demand the same. The law should apply equally to all. It should be stated clearly: Channel 10 had no respect for the democratic process until now. Should the Knesset then save it today?



December 13, 2012

MEDIA COMMENT: Our media’s view of Hanukka

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:46 am by yisraelmedad

Media Comment: Our media’s view of Hanukka

The Zionist concept of Hanukka, a celebration of Jewish independence, a memory of days which preceded the terrible diaspora, has eluded many parts of our media.
When you really think about it, Hanukka is a problem for progressive liberals,  whether religious or secular. The festival celebrates the victory of religious  zealots over Greek sympathizers.
It reaffirms every year the deep  connection between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount. The Hanukka song “Maoz Tzur” expresses the thanks of the Jewish People to the Almighty for his  help in restoring the sacrificial customs at the Temple Mount altar. It ends  with the outrageous request for the Almighty to take revenge for the Jewish  blood spilled and bring about the full redemption. Clearly this is not  politically correct, and yet Hanukka is celebrated in the vast majority of  Jewish homes. It is a week of vacation from school. And yes, even parts of our  media participate.
The Israel Broadcasting Authority, guided by Moria  Lapid who heads Jewish-related programming, invested much effort and funding in  creating a new Hanukka series devoted especially to various Jewish communities  in the Diaspora. The seven programs of the series, directed by Moshe Alafi,  bring every night a perspective of communities in Toronto, Boston, Odessa,  Buenos Aires, Oslo, Torino and Toulouse. Each program ends with the lighting of  the Hanukka candles.
For the first time in many years, the IBA brings  into our homes a view of the life of a Jewish community, its difficulties, its  relationship to Israel and Judaism. It brings home to the Israeli viewer the  immense responsibility which we have for the perpetuation of Jewish life also in  the Diaspora.
It also presents to the Israeli a different view of  Judaism, one that is much broader than that of Orthodox Jewry as it appears in  Israel. It shows how people who are secular in outlook can still identify with  their Jewish roots and even visit the synagogue or the mikve (ritual bath) from  time to time.
Especially moving was the scene from Torino where the son  of Primo Levi is interviewed. He described how his children caused his family to  reconnect to their Jewish roots. This in a community so small that the  local Jewish school is not limited solely to Jews. In fact, it highlights one  non-Jewish mother who explains that she sends her children to the Jewish school  since she knows that it is only there that they can be educated to values that  she believes in.
The IBA outdid all other broadcasters in the time it  spent on Hanukka.
Reshet Beth radio covered the candle lighting ceremony  every day. Even the music channel joined the party by broadcasting, for example,  the oratorio Judah Maccabi by Handel.
However, the difficulty and  challenge presented by Hanukka did not pass over the IBA completely. Consider  the song “The days of Hanukka.”
It has two versions; one talks about the  miracles that the Maccabees created, while the other version is about the  miracles the Almighty made for the Maccabees.
Only the first version is  broadcast on the IBA radio.
The Army Radio station had a big headline on  its website: “Lighting the Hanukka candles with Galatz during the festival at 7  p.m. – special Hanukka programs.” The 7 p.m.
“Hanukka” program was titled  An Israeli Story and was broadcast on four days this week. On Tuesday evening,  the story revolved around the “Pancake House,” an eatery open seven days a week  at a gas station.
Presumably the place was chosen due to the custom of  eating pancakes on Hanukka.
Jewish content? A real connection to Hanukka?  Forget it. Neither the Hebrew word for pancake, “leviva,” or the Yiddish latke  were used once during the 40-minute program. The program really had nothing to  do with Hanukka, but was rather a celebration of foreign culture. Some of the  other Hanukka programming on Army Radio was slightly more to the point.  Especially noteworthy was a celebration of the Hebrew language on Tuesday. But a  deep connection to Hanukka was not to be found.
One way to run away from  the questions posed in the beginning of this column is to pay attention only to  exterior aspects of the festival, such as food. Indeed, last Shavuot this was  also the case with the Educational TV station.
While Educational TV did  have some special programs for Hanukka this year, most of them were rehashed  material from previous years. To its credit, one should mention that in the some  of the children’s programming the station did not only deal with exterior issues  but actually gave the story of Hanukka.
Judging by the published  programming schedules of TV’ Channel 2 and Channel 10, Hanukka does not  exist.
While ignoring issues is one very good way of running away from a  difficult topic, perhaps the reason is more prosaic. Hanukka, in the minds of  the commercial stations, probably does not “sell.” No sex and no drugs, and the  only violence is that of a bunch of zealots who believed in Jewish independence  and religious customs.
The difficulty of dealing with Jewish and Israeli  values is not limited to Hanukka. Dr. Ron Breiman, who writes in Ynet, News1 and  other media outlets, has noted on more than one occasion that around Shavuot  time, our media no longer broadcasts the song “Our baskets are on our  shoulders,” a formerly quite popular song for adults as well as  children.
The song refers to the biblical commandment of bringing the  first fruits to the Temple Mount. Breiman notes that the words of the song are: “We have brought the first fruit from even the far parts of the country, from  the valley, the Galilee, Judea and Samaria.” He surmises that the song is not  broadcast due to the reference to Judea and Samaria as parts of  Israel.
Perhaps symptomatic of this atmosphere are two op-ed columns  published in Israel HaYom on Tuesday.
Chagit Ron-Rabinovitch explains how  she was born during the Hanukka period, how the Hanukka candles bring the family  together. In her words: “How I love Hanukka” because “that’s how it  is.”
The second column, authored by Hagai Uzan, revolved about the  stupidity of having such a long vacation at this time of year. Uzan complains  about how difficult it is to take care of the children who are not in  school.
“In other vacations,” he wrote, “there is some logic. On Succot  there are 700 festivals in the neighborhood… but during Hanukka,  everything is wet, cold or both together.”
The Zionist concept of  Hanukka, a celebration of Jewish independence, a memory of days which preceded  the terrible diaspora, a return to those days when Jews, despite their minority  status or numeric disadvantage, would not turn the other cheek but fight and be  proud of their beliefs, has eluded many parts of our media.
The authors  are, respectively, vice chairman and chairman of Israel’s Media Watch  (

December 12, 2012

Ethnic Cleansing

Posted in Uncategorized at 4:04 pm by yisraelmedad

During the Arab riots, the “Distrubances” of 1936, Jews were forced to vacate their neighborhoods in proximity to Arabs to aoid death and injury.

A family moving out, temporarily they seem to hope:-


1936 ec



There Went Israel, Virtually, That Is

Posted in Uncategorized at 3:55 pm by yisraelmedad

The new Fatah logo:


The keffiyeh is the map of “Palestine” – with no Israel to be found.


Busy Temple Mount Visitors Day

Posted in Israel/Zionism tagged at 2:13 pm by yisraelmedad

A lot came.

Via here:-








December 5, 2012

MEDIA COMMENT: Fascists, communists and traitor

Posted in Media at 11:35 pm by yisraelmedad

Media Comment: Fascists, communists and traitors


Israel’s Left did not like the First Lebanon war that began in 1982. They claimed that it was unnecessary, excessive and harmful to Israel.


As part of their democratic right to freedom of speech, they hurled very strong epithets at Israel’s leaders at the time, prime minister Menachem Begin and defense minister Ariel Sharon. A picture that stands out and perhaps should never be forgotten is that of the Left displaying placards at their demonstrations as well as shouting organized chants with the slogan – “Begin is a murderer.” The left-wing leadership did not speak out against the use of such slurs.

Israel’s right wing learned that it was acceptable to use such language.

Prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and foreign minister Shimon Peres were often, unfortunately, called traitors during the first two years following the signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO and Yasser Arafat. The Right claimed that their actions were a knife in Israel’s back and the resurrection of a terrorist organization.

Israel’s secret service also stepped into the fray by using its agent provocateur Avishai Raviv to distribute and exhibits placards of Rabin in an SS uniform.

And then Rabin was assassinated.

Binyamin Netanyahu, who was shortly thereafter elected prime minister, was harshly criticized by our media, although he took pains to disassociate himself from the “traitor chant” in every demonstration in which he participated.

He would lecture the crowd, explaining that there were deep differences of opinion but that prime minister Rabin was doing what he believed was in the best interests of Israel.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Rabin, and the soul-searching that came with it, there was hope that something might have been learned, that words can kill and that the hallowed democratic principle of freedom of speech does not justify incitement.

The disengagement from the Gaza Strip was a critical trial of whether the lesson had been learned. Even though prime minister Sharon reneged on his election promises and platform, even though he did not honor fundamental democratic principles such as abiding by the majority vote of the Likud against the disengagement, the demonstrations against him were muted. Words such as “traitor” were not used.

When some demonstrators attempted to use World War II-era symbols such the yellow Star of David, they were harshly criticized by our media and these attempts were stopped. The leaders of the movement against Sharon made sure that although the demonstrations were forceful, they would not cross red lines and there would be no usage of inciting slogans. Any references to the Nazi era were not tolerated.

But has the lesson really been learned? Consider what happened in our media in the aftermath of the recent Likud primary.

In the leadership race between Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, Sa’ar won handily. He came in first place while Steinitz was only in 15th, one below Moshe Feiglin. Sa’ar was consistent in his support of Israel’s right to settle everywhere in Israel and was against the two-state solution.

Steinitz kept rather mum on these issues. Likud MKs Danny Danon, Ze’ev Elkin and Yariv Levin led the attempts to limit the authority of the Supreme Court and prevent foreign governments funding Israeli NGOs. They came in 5th, 8th and 9th, respectively.

Not surprisingly, Israel’s Left attacked, and the media was its vehicle. One might expect that if Netanyahu is reelected, the Likud’s policies against the two-state solution and its attempts to replace the ruling left-wing elites in the judicial and other spheres will be stronger and perhaps more effective than during the past four years. Indeed, attempts to clarify the differences between conservative and liberal and to counter the misuse of the word “centrist” by all political parties are desperately needed. The voter should know what she or he is voting for and should not be conned by words.

But is this what really happened? MK Elkin created a clip titled “Elkin-style” which received over 350,000 views. The clip accentuates Elkin’s leadership in the Knesset.

On Sharon Gal’s Economic Evening program of November 26, TV channel 10’s political commentator Emanuel Rosen had the following to say in the aftermath of the Likud primary and the successful clip: “It is no longer Feiglin, it is Danny Danon, it is Elkin, whose election clip ‘Elkin-style,’ don’t know if you saw it, is an absolutely fascist clip.”

His use of the word “fascist” was not a one-time affair. In the same show he added: “I believe that Naftali Bennett reflects a new romanticism in the Right and it could be that this romanticism is not reflected in what I call people with fascist tendencies such as Ze’ev Elkin and Danny Danon. I think one likes the atmosphere of the National Religious Party [Habayit Hayehudi] more than the fascist atmosphere, it [the NRP’s] is a legitimate atmosphere of the Right which one can be for or against, but it certainly is not fascist.”

Rosen set the tone, and Haaretz readily adopted it. It used cartoons to depict Elkin as a fascist. The message is clear: The new Likud leadership is fascist, with World War II connotations, for in Italy, the word fascist is the equivalent of the word Nazi in Germany. The Left does not hesitate to resort to its old tactics.

This kind of response is especially glaring when one compares the reactions to the Labor party primary.

Meirav Michaeli, No. 5 in the list, was described by Ynet as the big victor in this primary. She is of a rather dubious background.

In response to the Gilad Schalit saga, she publicly pronounced that mothers should not send their children to serve in the Israeli army, with no uproar. Other notable new faces in the Labor party were Ms. Stav Shaffir (9th place), whose leadership role in the “social protests” could be described as a fallback to the communist- era vernacular, as well as her fellow leader Itzik Shmuli (12th place).

It is very clear that the new leadership of the Labor party has a strong liberal left-wing social character, which arguably could lend itself to being described as almost communist. The message of taxation of the rich, increasing the state deficit to overcome perceived social injustice is not that far away.

In real life, Labor party leader Shelly Yacimovich grew up in a pro-communist home and in 1996, voted for the Maki Communist- Balad list. Yet, the response to the Labor party primary differed substantially from the response to the Likud primary. Justifiably, none of the reporters, commentators or politicians used inciting epithets such as “Communist.” At most they pointed out the differences between the Labor party’s socialist attitude and the Likud’s capitalist one. But the Right is considered to be “fascist.”

Israel’s left-wing media is using the old fashioned but well know method of delegitimizing its competitor and inserting into the mass media such terms so as to dominate the “conversation.” It seemingly has learned nothing from the assassination of Rabin and is willing to employ character assassination of those it does not like.

It is not only sad, but harmful to the cause of the Left. At the end of the day, the Israeli voter will distance himself from those who instead of responding to challenges prefer to run away from them and use cowardly methods.


December 2, 2012

E1, Here We Are

Posted in Uncategorized at 2:34 pm by yisraelmedad




Tweeted by LF


What’s “E1”?

The corridor linking Maaleh Adumin with Jerusalem to be built up now.


Defense Minister Ehud Barak denied on Sunday that theapproval of 3,000 new housing units in the E1 area are related to the upcoming January elections.

Following a report by Ha’aretz on Sunday claiming the decision to approve the units was designed to appease right-wing voters, Barak responded, claiming the construction was not based on electoral considerations.

“For the last twenty years, the Israeli government has retained the right to build in the E1 area,” Barak stated.

Barak added that the move was in response to the UN decision to upgrade the status of Palestine and in light of Abbas’s speech at the United Nations.



December 1, 2012

How To Panic Your Readership

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:55 pm by yisraelmedad

Two Haaretz headlines, one day after another, during the Pillar of Defense operation:



With headlines like those, wouldn’t you be upset (and panicked into making the wrong decisions).