ANGER DOESN’T APPEAR — IT’S TAUGHT

IF THEY HIT YOU, HIT HARDER: LIFE LESSONS FROM DAD THAT TURNED JOTAM INTO A SOCIAL MEDIA WARRIOR

That lesson didn’t stay private. It became public — and visible online. When challenged publicly, the response is rarely disengagement.

What begins as a dispute online can quickly become a legal matter.

CRITICISM DOESN’T ALWAYS LEAD TO DEBATE. SOMETIMES IT LEADS TO SILENCE.

JOTAM CONFINO AND THE ART OF DODGING CRITICISM

A PATTERN OF RESPONSE WHEN CHALLENGED PUBLICLY

When questioned about his role as an “expert” on Middle Eastern affairs, Jotam Confino frequently presents himself as a credible authority for Danish media.
However, public challenges to that authority are often met not with clarification or debate, but with disengagement.

This section documents a recurring response pattern observed during public criticism.

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE STRATEGY

STEP 1 — ASSERT AUTHORITY

Publicly reinforce expert status to frame the narrative before criticism gains traction.

STEP 2 — REMOVE THE CRITIC

Block or limit engagement with critics, preventing follow-up questions or rebuttals.

STEP 3 — AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY

With dialogue closed, the original claim remains uncontested in public view.

When challenged publicly, the response is rarely disengagement.

IMPLICATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AVOIDANCE

Confino’s approach does not simply limit engagement with critics; it has broader implications for public trust and journalistic credibility.
When criticism is removed rather than addressed, the public record becomes incomplete, leaving claims uncontested by design.

EXPERTISE AND EVASION

Rather than responding to challenges through clarification or debate, criticism is frequently met with disengagement.
This response pattern shifts attention away from the substance of the critique and toward the absence of dialogue itself.

In journalism, where accountability and the exchange of ideas are foundational principles, avoiding scrutiny risks undermining the very authority an expert claim relies upon.
Expertise is not established by blocking dissent, but by engaging with it.

This section highlights the tension between professional self-presentation and the practical handling of criticism in public forums.

CRITICISM FROM PUBLIC FIGURES

The case concerns several Facebook posts in which former Enhedslisten politician Asmaa Abdol-Hamid criticises Jotam Confino’s coverage of the Israel–Palestine conflict.

On 27 December 2023, Abdol-Hamid wrote the following:

“Er Confino påvirkningsagent for besættelse og apartheidstaten Israel?
For om det er Confino eller en repræsentant for Israel Occupation Force der stiller sig frem på TV 2 – i forhold til det indhold, der pt leveres, er potato potato.”

According to reporting by Weekendavisen, Confino has filed a defamation lawsuit in response to the posts.
He is demanding that Abdol-Hamid publish a correction on Facebook and pay compensation of 200,000 DKK.

Speaking to Weekendavisen, Confino stated that the posts amounted to character assassination:

“Der er ikke tale om, at hun kalder mig en tosse eller en idiot,
men meget konkrete anklager om, hvem jeg er, og hvad jeg laver.”

Abdol-Hamid has described the lawsuit as an attempt to restrict her freedom of expression.
Speaking to Politiken, she said:

“Jeg oplever det som meget voldsomt og aggressivt.
Men jeg har ikke lyst til at lade mig begrænse.
Ytringsfrihed er en rettighed, som jeg vil værne om.”

Source:

Journalisten.dk, citing Weekendavisen (15 May 2024)

CONCLUSION

JOTAM CONFINO AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF AVOIDING SCRUTINY

Taken together, the documented examples on this page point to a consistent pattern in how public criticism is handled.
Rather than engaging with challenges through clarification or open debate, responses frequently involve disengagement, escalation, or legal action.

In journalism, where credibility depends on transparency, accountability, and the willingness to be questioned, such patterns carry professional consequences.
Avoiding scrutiny does not neutralise criticism; it shifts attention to the absence of dialogue itself.

The material presented here does not seek to assess intent or motivation.
It documents observable responses to criticism and places them in the context of widely accepted journalistic standards.

Whether this approach strengthens or weakens public trust is ultimately for readers to judge.
What is clear is that repeated avoidance of scrutiny challenges the principles of openness and accountability on which journalism relies.

CONCERNS REGARDING A FUJ NOMINATION

A LETTER TO FORENINGEN FOR UNDERSØGENDE JOURNALISTIK (FUJ)

This section outlines concerns related to a recent nomination by the Foreningen for Undersøgende Journalistik (FUJ).
The purpose of the letter is to request clarification and transparency regarding circumstances that may be relevant to the organisation’s stated values and criteria.

The concerns raised below are based on publicly available information and are presented in the interest of open dialogue and accountability within the journalistic community.

The following letter raises questions regarding a FUJ nomination and whether all relevant considerations have been adequately addressed.
The intent is not to assign motive, but to encourage transparency and informed evaluation.

FROM JOTAM CONFINO TO CLAES KIRKEBY THEILGAARD: WHY THIS SHIFT MATTERS

The transition from Jotam Confino to Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard is not based on personal association,
but on shared institutional context.
Journalists do not operate in isolation; they work within media organisations, ownership structures,
and editorial environments that shape access, framing, and visibility.

CLAES KIRKEBY THEILGAARD

The following is a verbatim quotation from a public Facebook post published by
Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard on November 4, 2023. The quotation is reproduced in full
and in its original language to ensure accuracy and documentation, should the original post
be altered or removed in the future.

Claes Theilgaard – 4. november 2023

Jeg deltog i går i en lukket fremvisning på Israels ambassade af råmateriale fra Hamas’ terrorangreb den 7. oktober.
De film og billeder, som blev vist, er det værste, jeg nogensinde har set.

I løbet af 45 minutters tid fik jeg og de andre, der deltog i fremvisningen, et indblik i den rendyrkede ondskab,
som Hamas repræsenterer.

Vi så, hvordan Hamas’ terrorister slog børn ihjel. Hvordan de kidnappede folk og lagde dem på ladet af deres
pickup trucks. Hvordan de gik fra hus til hus og bil til bil og skød løs. Hvordan de samlede lig til bunke for
at lave bål af dem. Hvordan de begik halshugninger med en skovl. Hvordan de slæbte lig rundt, sparkede til dem,
og fornedrede dem. Hvordan de talte om at tage folks afhuggede hoveder og bruge dem til at spille fodbold.

Alt dette og mere til, gjorde Hamas’ afstumpede terrorister imens de filmede sig selv med GoPro og smartphone
og jublede i stadig større ekstase, for hvert drab, de begik.

Det, jeg så i går, var blot et lille udsnit af den enorme massakre, som Hamas udførte den 7. oktober.
Filmene og billederne viste 138 ud af de 1400 drab, der blev begået denne ene dag.
Det fulde omfang af massakren er næsten ikke til at fatte.

Her en måneds tid efter er der desværre mange, der enten glemmer, benægter eller relativiserer angrebet.
Nogle hylder det endda. Hvordan man kan det, fatter jeg ikke.

Del gerne.

Source: Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard, Facebook (public post), November 4, 2023

QUESTIONS OF SELECTION AND EXPERIENCE

According to his own publicly available CV, Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard has been enrolled as a Bachelor student in Communication and Digital Media at Aalborg University Copenhagen since 2022. As a Danish bachelor programme spans three years, this means that at the time of the closed briefing at the Israeli embassy in November 2023, he was still an active student.

This raises legitimate questions of selection and proportionality. In a media landscape with numerous experienced journalists covering international conflict, it remains unclear why a bachelor student with limited professional experience was selected to attend a closed, state-curated briefing concerning one of the most complex and volatile geopolitical conflicts of our time.

The concern is not personal, but structural. When early-career journalists or students are granted exclusive access to emotionally charged material through closed-door briefings organised by a state actor, questions arise about framing, context, and the long-term impact such access may have on perspective, narrative emphasis, and journalistic development.

This is particularly relevant when such briefings take place weeks after the events in question, and without transparent criteria for participant selection or parallel exposure to broader, independent investigations and subsequent findings.

Source: Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard, CV –

CV

CONCLUSION: WHEN ACCESS BECOMES PROPAGANDA

Based on the documented observations in this article, the closed embassy briefings
described above exhibit several defining characteristics of state propaganda.
This conclusion is not drawn from intent, but from structure, method, and effect.

The material was presented in a closed setting, curated by a state actor, to a
select and limited group of journalists. Participation criteria were not made
transparent, and access was granted to at least one active bachelor student with
limited professional experience in international conflict reporting.

The briefing took place weeks after the events of October 7, and focused exclusively
on selected footage without parallel contextualisation, independent verification,
or engagement with subsequent investigations and unresolved questions that later
emerged in international reporting.

When emotionally charged material is selectively presented, isolated from broader
context, and delivered through exclusive access rather than open scrutiny, it ceases
to function as neutral information. It becomes narrative construction.

Propaganda is not defined solely by falsehoods. It is defined by asymmetry: selective
exposure, controlled framing, and the strategic shaping of perception. Measured against
these criteria, the briefing described by Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard functions as propaganda,
regardless of the personal beliefs or intentions of those who attended.

This assessment does not accuse individual journalists of bad faith. Rather, it highlights
a structural problem in modern conflict reporting, where access replaces verification,
and proximity to power substitutes for critical distance.

In such contexts, journalism risks becoming an extension of state messaging rather than
an independent examination of reality. That is the central concern raised by this analysis.

FROM STRUCTURE BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL

The purpose of examining Claes Kirkeby Theilgaard was not to shift focus away from Jotam Confino, but to illuminate the broader institutional environment in which journalistic authority, access, and credibility are produced.

With this structural context established, it becomes possible to return to Jotam Confino — not as an isolated figure, but as a visible outcome of the same media ecosystem, access dynamics, and narrative conditions described above.

THE ‘EXPERT’ WHO CAN’T TAKE CRITICISM

MY OBSERVATIONS ON JOTAM CONFINO’S RESPONSE AND CONCERNS ABOUT HIS OBJECTIVITY

Recently, I’ve been closely following the work of Jotam Confino, a journalist who contributes to outlets like B.T. and several international media. During my research, I noticed a clear pattern in Confino’s coverage of the Israel–Palestine conflict, which appeared consistently
one-sided, often favouring the Israeli perspective.

Based on these observations, I posed straightforward questions to Confino, seeking an open discussion about whether he acknowledges any bias in his reporting.

THANKS, DAD! HOW JOTAM CONFINO LEARNED THE ART OF NEVER BACKING DOWN—ESPECIALLY ONLINE

WHEN IN DOUBT, FIGHT: JOTAM CONFINO’S DAD KNOWS BEST—AND SO DOES HE

TERRORSTATE ISRAEL PROPAGANDA

AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIAS AND INFLUENCE

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has long been a point of global controversy, with many questioning the media’s portrayal of events. Among the journalists who have faced criticism is Jotam Confino, whose coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict has been accused of showing a clear pro-Israel bias. Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, a former politician from Enhedslisten, has openly questioned Jotam Confino’s bias, calling out what she perceives as pro-Israel propaganda in his reporting.

In one of her public posts, Abdol-Hamid asked a critical question: “Is Confino an influence agent for the occupation and apartheid state of Israel?” Her bold statement raises legitimate concerns about Jotam Confino’s bias and whether his reporting can be trusted as objective journalism, or if it is influenced by a pro-Israel agenda.

PROPAGANDA AND MEDIA BIAS

The influence of the Israel lobby is a well-documented phenomenon. Articles like Is the Israel Lobby for Real? explore how powerful lobbying groups work to shape narratives in favor of Israel, often downplaying or justifying the occupation of Palestine. The question of media bias becomes especially concerning when the journalists reporting on the conflict are potentially aligned with such influential entities.

Confino’s alleged bias is further complicated by his public associations and the perception that he may be sympathetic to the Israeli government. His involvement in pro-Israel narratives is not an isolated case. The Israeli state has been accused of waging an information war, attempting to manipulate the global narrative in its favor. The Information War and Hamas Charter examines this tactic, revealing how Israel seeks to label Palestinian resistance movements as inherently terroristic, while downplaying its own actions.

THIS IS HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS

Propaganda efforts by the Israeli state are not a secret. In fact, there are clear guidelines on how the narrative should be shaped to the global audience. One stark example of this is the Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, a document that outlines strategies to frame Israel’s actions in a favorable light. You can view the document here. The language guide demonstrates how carefully crafted messaging is used to manipulate international perceptions of the Israel-Palestine conflict, ensuring that Israel is portrayed as a victim and Palestinians as aggressors.

VOICES OF RESISTANCE AND CENSORSHIP

The case of Israeli soldiers who have refused to participate in military actions against Gaza, such as this powerful story, shows a stark contrast to the pro-Israel narratives often seen in mainstream media. These voices of dissent are frequently sidelined, further perpetuating pro-Israel bias in global coverage.

It becomes vital to ask: how much of this is carefully crafted propaganda? And if this is the case, should journalists like Jotam Confino be held accountable for reinforcing these narratives, either intentionally or through biased reporting?

BOYCOTT AND RESISTANCE AGAINST ISRAELI PROPAGANDA

Movements like the Boycott Israel campaign work to bring awareness to the oppression of Palestinians by encouraging economic and cultural resistance. This article delves deeper into the goals of the boycott, aiming to disrupt the flow of support that sustains the occupation. The goal is not just to raise awareness but to challenge the powerful mechanisms, including media influence, that keep the occupation in place.

It is disheartening to see young, inexperienced journalists being exposed to these one-sided narratives so early in their careers. The case of Claes Theilgaard, a student invited by the Israeli embassy after just one year of studies, raises serious questions about how these invitations are used to create early alliances and influence the media landscape.

A CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

If Jotam Confino and other journalists are contributing to the propaganda machine of the Israeli state, it’s imperative that the journalistic community addresses this. Organizations like the Foreningen for Undersøgende Journalistik (FUJ), which has nominated Confino for a prize, should reassess whether such a candidate aligns with their values of promoting objective, unbiased investigative journalism.

As Asmaa Abdol-Hamid continues to speak out, the responsibility falls on all of us to critically evaluate the information we consume and to demand accountability from those who shape our understanding of global events.