Who Gets to Decide What We Are Allowed to See?

Something increasingly uncomfortable is happening in the United States and, increasingly, across the wider Western cultural landscape. The question is no longer simply what people think about Israel and Palestine. It is becoming a question of who gets to decide which opinions are allowed to reach the public in the first place.

Consider what happened to Macklemore. The American rapper was removed from Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour after publicly expressing support for Palestinians, including saying “Free Palestine” and speaking about the destruction in Gaza. Macklemore has also explicitly addressed Jewish audiences, making clear that his criticism was directed at Israel and its policies rather than at Jews as a people. According to statements surrounding the controversy, several stadiums indicated that they would not host the concerts if he remained on the bill.

Now compare that with the treatment of Ye. Ye has made some of the most extreme antisemitic statements imaginable, including statements praising Hitler and attacking Jews themselves. Yet when his concerts were scheduled at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, demands for the concerts to be cancelled were rejected, with the stadium authority citing constitutional free-speech principles while making clear that it did not endorse his views.

That contrast deserves examination. Not because Ye’s behaviour should be excused—it should not—and not because criticism of Israel should automatically be considered legitimate or illegitimate. The important question is much bigger: why can one artist make hateful statements about Jews and still perform in a publicly controlled venue, while another artist faces exclusion after making political statements about Israel and Palestine? What determines the boundary, who decides it, and perhaps most importantly, who has the power to decide?

Ed Sheeran: a statement worse than the offence

This is where the conversation needs to become more sophisticated. Instead of asking whether some mysterious group “controls” Hollywood, politics or the media, we should ask much more concrete questions. Who owns the platforms? Who funds political campaigns? Which lobbying organisations have access to politicians? Which corporations have commercial relationships with governments? Who sits on the boards of major media companies? Who owns stadiums and entertainment venues? Who decides which artists appear on television? Who decides which stories receive hours of coverage and which disappear after a few minutes? And what happens to people who cross an invisible political line?

These are legitimate questions about power and influence, and they can be investigated without blaming an entire nationality, religion or ethnicity. The Macklemore controversy provides one example. A number of major stadiums were able to exercise enormous influence over whether an artist could appear on a major American tour. Whatever one's opinion of Macklemore’s politics, the underlying mechanism is worth examining: an institution controlling access to a huge audience can effectively determine which political voices are heard. That does not automatically prove a coordinated conspiracy, but it does demonstrate why the relationship between money, ownership, politics, entertainment and freedom of expression deserves scrutiny.

The same question applies to mainstream media. Most people do not personally witness wars, diplomatic negotiations, political meetings or corporate lobbying. They experience these events through a relatively small number of information channels. Television tells us what happened. Newspapers tell us what matters. Political commentators tell us what it means. Social-media algorithms decide what repeatedly appears in front of us. Governments, corporations, lobbyists, campaign organisations and wealthy individuals all attempt to influence that information environment.

The result can be something much more subtle than outright censorship. It can be selection and framing. Which photograph becomes the headline? Which victim gets introduced by name? Which word is used? Is something described as an “attack” or an “operation”? Is someone called a “militant” or a “soldier”? Is it an “occupation” or a “security measure”? Is a protest described as “pro-Palestinian” or “antisemitic”? Is criticism directed at the Israeli government, or is it presented as criticism of Israel itself? Individual facts can remain technically present while the framing surrounding them changes the way millions of people interpret those facts.

That is why propaganda does not necessarily look like propaganda. Sometimes it looks like a perfectly ordinary news bulletin. Sometimes it is not about telling people something that is completely false. It is about giving people a carefully selected version of reality, repeatedly, until they stop asking what has been left out.

Show someone the same images every night. Give them the same explanations. Repeat the same political language. Invite the same commentators. Highlight the same victims and minimise others. Eventually, the audience may begin to believe that the version of reality presented to them is simply reality itself.

And this is not unique to Israel and Palestine. Governments, political parties, corporations and media organisations have used framing, selective reporting and public-relations campaigns throughout modern history. The question is therefore not whether one particular country, religion or ethnic group secretly controls everything. The better question is: who has the power to influence what millions of people see, hear and think about every day?

That question can actually be investigated. Follow the money. Examine ownership. Look at political donations and lobbying. Examine corporate relationships. Compare different news organisations covering the same event. Look at what is reported prominently and what receives little attention. Read the original statements rather than relying entirely on somebody else's interpretation. Look at what was said before and after the controversial sentence. In other words, stop accepting the finished narrative and start examining how the narrative was constructed.

Something also appears to be changing in public opinion. A February 2026 Gallup poll found that 41% of Americans said they sympathised more with Palestinians, compared with 36% who sympathised more with Israelis. Three years earlier, the figures were 31% and 54%, respectively. A more recent Pew Research Center survey likewise found that only 32% of Americans held a favourable opinion of the Israeli government, while 62% viewed it unfavourably. Among Americans aged 18–29, 58% viewed Palestinians favourably, compared with 32% who viewed Israelis favourably.

Whatever one's political position, these figures are significant because they suggest that millions of people are no longer automatically accepting the traditional narrative surrounding Israel and Palestine. People have access to information that previous generations did not. They can see footage directly from people living through events. They can compare international coverage. They can read statements from politicians and organisations themselves. They can follow money and connections that might once have remained hidden behind institutional walls.

That does not mean everything circulating online is true. In fact, the opposite can be the case. Social media can spread propaganda, misinformation and conspiracy theories just as effectively as mainstream media can. The answer is therefore not to replace one information bubble with another. It is to become much harder to manipulate.

Look beyond the headline. Read opposing accounts. Check who owns the publication. Examine who funds the organisation. Separate criticism of a government from hatred of a people. Separate documented evidence from political claims. Ask what information is missing. Ask why a particular story is receiving enormous attention while another receives almost none. And when someone tells you that a particular opinion is forbidden, dangerous or unacceptable, ask yourself why.

Who benefits from that opinion being silenced? Who benefits from it being amplified? Who controls the platform on which the argument is taking place?

Perhaps the most important issue is not whether Israel has influence, or whether pro-Israel organisations have influence. Clearly, governments, lobbying groups, wealthy donors, corporations and political organisations can all exert influence, and the extent of that influence should be examined through evidence rather than assumptions. The deeper issue is whether any powerful interest should be able to determine the boundaries of public debate without being questioned.

A democratic society depends on people being able to hear competing arguments, examine evidence and make up their own minds. That applies even when the speech is uncomfortable, unpopular or politically inconvenient. It also means that people have the right to disagree, protest, boycott and refuse to listen. There is an important difference between an audience deciding not to support an artist and a powerful institution using its control over a platform to prevent that artist from reaching an audience in the first place.

So perhaps the question we should all be asking is not simply, “Who is right?” It is, “Who is shaping what I believe is true?”

Because if someone else controls the information you receive, controls which voices reach you, controls which stories dominate your television screen, and controls which opinions are presented as acceptable, then they do not necessarily have to control your mind. They only need to influence the information from which you form your conclusions.

That is why we should question the narratives being placed in front of us every single day—not because every narrative is false, and not because every institution is corrupt, but because no powerful institution should be beyond scrutiny.

Look behind the headlines. Examine the evidence. Follow the money. Compare the sources. Question the framing. Ask what has been left out.

And then make up your own mind.