Duvi Honig is founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber Of Commerce
Is there a doctor on call?
Not as sarcasm, not as mockery-but as a serious question the media refuses to confront. What the public is watching is no longer controversy, debate, or newsworthiness. It is the prolonged public display of behavior that has been detached from reality for years, treated as daily content rather than as a warning sign.
This is no longer about apologies or outrage cycles. It is about someone who plainly needs professional help-not media oxygen.
Yet the press continues to behave as if Ye’s latest statement, apology, reversal, or paid advertisement might finally carry meaning. One day he attacks Jews. The next day he apologizes. Then he retracts. Then he escalates again. Most recently, he paid for a full-page newspaper ad to “clarify" remarks that were already widely understood to be incoherent. The media rushed to cover it as news.
It wasn’t.
A paid advertisement does not restore credibility. It does not demonstrate growth. And it does not transform instability into insight. Treating it as such is not just unserious-it is irresponsible.
Journalism is not required to report every utterance simply because it exists. Editors make judgments every day about relevance and public value. Continuing to spotlight Ye’s erratic behavior is a choice, and it is a choice that serves attention and clicks-not the public.
If this conduct came from someone without fame, it would not be dissected endlessly. It would be recognized as unreliable and disregarded. Celebrity should not suspend basic standards of discernment.
The “Is there a doctor on call?" question is not about diagnosing anyone from afar. It is about recognizing a very simple truth: when behavior becomes this repetitive, contradictory, and disconnected from reality, the responsible response is not endless analysis. It is restraint.
There is a point at which continuing to treat such conduct as meaningful discourse becomes dishonest, because it implies coherence where none exists. At that point, professional intervention-not public amplification-is what is needed.
What makes this especially dangerous is the substance being amplified.
Antisemitism is not a phase. It is not performance art. It is not provocation for entertainment. It is the oldest hatred in history, and it spreads through repetition and normalization. Even when reported critically, constant exposure dulls alarm and erodes moral boundaries.
Those consequences are no longer theoretical.
Just last week in Miami, Ye’s “Heil Hitler" song-an explicit glorification of Nazism-was played openly by some of the most aggressive antisemites in the area. This is what happens when antisemitism is treated as spectacle rather than shut down. Hatred migrates from headlines to real life.
The media often hides behind claims of neutrality. But neutrality does not mean amplification without judgment. Choosing to keep a microphone on conduct that is plainly erratic is not objective-it is permissive.
Israel understands this instinctively. Jewish history teaches that dangerous speech does not need to persuade to be harmful; it only needs to become familiar. When hatred becomes routine, it becomes tolerable. When it is tolerated, it spreads.
This is why antisemitism demands clarity, not constant commentary.
This is not a free-speech issue. Ye is free to speak, to contradict himself, and to buy as many ads as he wants. The question is whether the media is obligated to follow every turn of that spiral. It is not.
Coverage should illuminate reality, not obscure it. Pretending that the next statement might finally matter only misleads the public and trivializes real harm.
So yes-is there a doctor on call?
Because what appears unhealthy here is not only one individual’s conduct, but a media ecosystem that refuses to disengage even when disengagement is the most responsible choice.
Antisemitism is not entertainment.
Instability is not insight.
And repetition is not relevance.
Stop treating this as news.
Stop amplifying what has already been exposed.
And start exercising the judgment serious journalism requires.
The public gains nothing from this coverage.
And we lose far more by continuing it.