If one were to open up the Arutz Sheva website to read the news, one would likely see major differences with those in 'The New York Times, CNN or Ha'aretz, even if a reader was looking at the coverage of the same story. Even if the publications were discussing the same facts that occurred at an event (let's put the fake news aside for now...), we would see very different perspectives on how to word those facts.
The words that are chosen, the title of the news piece, the subtitle, the pictures presented, the descriptions, ("killed" or "murdered", "terrorists" or "militants", " "civilians" or "colluders"), the entire tone and implications, and above all, the analysis given to the news, can alter it 180 degrees. Sometimes, it is enough for one word to change the whole context and meaning.
One word?! Is that so?
Here we reach the story of the meraglim (the spies) in Parshat Shelach. Whoever reads the story and follows the events has a bit of a hard time to spot what exactly was the moment when the meraglim started to fall. Where did things start to go wrong? After all, they were sent to tell the nation what they saw in the Land of Israel, and that is exactly what they did. True, they saw some alarming things and they were open about it. But what did we expect from them? Did we want them to color everything rosy and project optimism? Or, perhaps it would have been easier for us to accept if they had twisted the facts? Even if they had some concerns, isn't it a person's right (and duty...) to express his viewpoint?
The Ramban (Bamidbar, 13:2) asks:
"ועוד מה עשו המרגלים, כי משה אמר להם (פסוק יח) וראיתם את הארץ מה היא ואת העם היושב עליה החזק הוא הרפה המעט הוא אם רב, ואמר להם בערים (פסוק יט) הבמחנים אם במבצרים, ועל כל פנים היו צריכין להשיבו על מה שצוה אותם. ומה פשעם ומה חטאתם כשאמרו לו (פסוק כח) אפס כי עז העם והערים בצורות גדולות, וכי על מנת שיעידו לו שקר שלח אותם?"
Whoever reads the pesukim (13:26-29), sees that they answered exactly what they were requested to, Ramban says, and the verses bear him out:
They went, and they came to Moses and Aaron and all the congregation of the Children of Israel in the desert of Paran, to Kadesh. They brought them back a report, as well as to the entire congregation, and they showed them the fruit of the land.
They told him and said, "We came to the land to which you sent us, and it is flowing with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.
However, the people who inhabit the land are mighty, and the cities are extremely huge and fortified, and there we saw even the offspring of the giant.
The Amalekites dwell in the south land, while the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorite dwell in the mountainous region. The Canaanites dwell on the coast alongside the Jordan."
The Ramban later on (pasuk 27) explains that it all relates to one word that they added and changed everything- "efes":
Obviously, we expect them to tell the truth, and that's what they did. However, by adding the word "efes..." they added a statement of their own that conquering the land is beyond our capability. They spread desperation. Once it is impossible to conquer the land, all the other good descriptions become irrelevant, it all becomes part of a negative propaganda.
Sound familiar?
The Akeidat Yitzchak (Shelach, Sha'ar 77). also explains (a little different than the Ramban) that it all began from the word "efes" turning everything negative. The word "efes" is a combative word- "however". "Unlike what we said till now...there is another fact that must be taken in consideration". The meraglim turned themselves into advisers. It is like a journalist who builds a picture and becomes an analyst.
The meraglim could've said that the nations living then in Israel were strong, and that's it. Then Am Yisrael would've reached the conclusion that they have to fight hard or come up with a good plan. However, they chose to present all of this in a bleak way. One can take the same facts and cause huge panic.
Sound familiar?
Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (13:28) explains the word "Efes":
"אפס ונטול כל ערך, כי העם הוא עז וחזק ממנו".
Everything we said and presented is pointless, because the nations are greater and stronger than us. They cynically claim that everything is in vain.
Sound familiar?
Other mefarshim explained similarly how the meraglim were supposed to only give a specific answer as to the best way to attack and conquer a city, and not venture their opinion whether or not it is possible. They had no right to use the "If" question (Ohr Hachayim, 13:1). Others explained that they were supposed to be "tayarim" or tourists and not "meraglim '' which are advisors adding their subjective views into the equation (Otzar Likutei Sichot, Shelach, Page 383).
Obviously, not everything has to be overly positive, and we do not want to be naive. We must know how to interpret the facts the way they are and separate facts from personal opinions and analysis. Afterwards, we achieve a full picture of the puzzle, and, together with emunah, build the proper and accurate approach to challenges.