On the eve of Rosh Hashana this year, Israel's President Weizmann physically attacked reporter Moshe Nussbaum, slapping him in the face. Mr. Nussbaum, a reporter for Israel's Second Television channel was too insistent when questioning Mr. Weizmann as to his precise comments in Washington about Israel's Prime Minister. This news item did not make any front page headlines, it appeared incidentally in two newspapers, was not mentioned in the electronic media, even though the event was filmed (1).

After the elections of May 1996, former Prime Minister Peres, was questioned about his defeat by Daniel Ben-Simon (2). The interview follows:
- What happened in these elections?
- We lost...
- Who is we?
- We. The Israelis.
- And who won?
- All those without an Israeli mentality.
- And who are these?
- You can call them the Jews.

This interview with Peres was virtually unknown to the public at large until Prime Minister Netanyahu cited it in his opening remarks to the Knesset on Oct. 27. Even after Netanyahu's speech, Mr. Peres was not questioned by the media about these remarks.

Indeed, former Prime Minister Peres seems to have been treated by the media with kid gloves. During the Grapes of Wrath Operation in Lebanon, which took place in April 1996, a disaster occurred. An erroneous shelling by the Israel Defense Forces left over 100 civilians dead in the Lebanese village of Kafr Kana. This happened less than two months prior to the elections in Israel. In a recorded interview, Mr. Peres, responding sharply to criticism leveled at him by Israel's Arab populace, described his detractors as "these stupid Arabs". This was another racist remark, one which could have severely damaged his chances of gaining the Israeli Arab vote during the upcoming election - if it had been broadcast or printed. The interview, however, never made it to the airwaves, because the journalists present decided that the public's right to know did not include this occasion (3).

Prime Minister Netanyahu is handled quite differently by the Israeli media. Visiting the venerable Rabbi Kadouri on the Succot Holiday, his remarks to the Rabbi were overheard and recorded by an alert reporter for Kol Yisrael Radio. Netanyahu said that "the Left in Israel has forgotten what it means to be a Jew". This comment was broadcast and chewed and regurgitated for a period of a week after it was made. Reporters and talk show hosts blamed him for inciting against half the Israeli populace. He was berated for making a divisive comment. In this case, the public's right to know was exercised fully, even though the statement was not part of any official interview, but rather reporters kept their microphone and video cameras running.

No doubt, Prime Minister Netanyahu could have been more careful, but why is it that his political opponents need not have to exercise the same restraint?

In the Yediot Aharonot newspaper of October. 22, parallel to the coverage of Mr. Netanyahu's remark, Ehud Barak, his Labor party opposite number, stated in an interview that "we, the Labor party, must disassociate ourselves from Meretz [a left-wing political party]. We must open our arms to our Jewish heritage". (4). The implication was clear; Meretz is not Jewish enough for his taste. Although his words were more extreme than Netanyahu's (who had been speaking in the context of Israel's security being dependent on Arabs as a result of the Oslo accords), Mr. Barak managed to pass the media's muster unscathed and did not have to defend his thinking in any interviews.

Israel's media journalists make no secret of the problem: they publicly acknowledge the existence of a left-wing bias in the media. One of Israel's leading journalists, Mr. Nahum Barnea, freely admitted after the May 1996 elections that "Netanyahu had to overcome a hostile media". (5). Ms. Orit Galili, a well known journalist testified in a TV program (6) that all the news media "were working in favor of Peres, absolutely". She further added "in none of my scenarios did the possibility occur that Bibi Netanyahu will win the elections... a journalist who covers an event comes with his inner world, and it seems that this influences his reportage".

One might be tempted to argue that as long as the bias is limited to statements of political leaders, then it remains rather harmless. Sadly the bias permeates very deeply.

Consider the Bar-On affair which almost brought down the Netanyahu government. Israel's Broadcasting Authority's TV Channel 1 accused Mr. Netanyahu of bowing to blackmail in his appointment of Mr. Bar- On as attorney general. Amazingly, the police reporter of Kol Yisrael radio, Mr. Aviv Bushinsky, had, in the early stages of the police investigation, already come to the conclusion that the police actually did not believe that it had enough evidence against the Prime Minister.

He tried to report this viewpoint, but the heads of the public-funded Israel Broadcasting Authority threatened him and consistently tried to play down any of his reports that did make the airwaves (6). At the end, Mr. Bushinsky left the broadcasting authority and today he is today the diplomatic reporter for "Galei Tzahal", the army radio station.

If we are to accept Mr. Bushinsky's testimony, then we must conclude that the Broadcasting Authority, who blamed the Prime Minister for blackmail, was at the same time blackmailing and blackballing its own reporter. Worse, it knowingly participated in an attempt at bringing down a democratically elected government by undemocratic and perhaps illegal means.

This bias is not limited to acts of political leaders. Consider a characteristic week in March 1997. A disturbed lady, Ms. Tatiana Susskind, pasted up on walls in Hebron an anti-Islamic poster. The media were up in arms. Again the right wing was accused of racism, of being antidemocratic and the like. But at the same time, Palestinian policemen forcibly and illegally evicted nuns out of a White Russian Church monastery in Hebron. Some of the nuns were beaten.

This event was not mentioned on TV Channel 1's main news broadcast. When Israel's Media Watch (IMW) queried the IBA, the official answer was that the information about the forcible eviction came from unreliable sources and by the time the story was verified, it was no longer important.

During the past year, any small demonstration of even a dozen people, aimed against the Israeli government and its leaders, receives extensive coverage by the IBA. During the Rabin-Peres government, even events of tens of thousands were barely mentioned or covered, not to talk about smaller demonstrations of a few hundred or thousand people. Consider just the latest example of a group called "Four Mothers".

This group demands the unilateral withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon. It is criticizing the Defense Minister and the army for allowing Israeli soldiers to become the sitting ducks of the Hizballah. The group, which numbers a few hundred at most, has received prime time interviews, their events are covered, even when less than a dozen women participate. Contrast this to "Women in Green", a right-wing group, which demonstrated continuously against the Rabin-Peres government and the Oslo accords. Women in Green were barely heard, their demonstrations were kept quiet, their leaders were not given the opportunity to explain themselves in hour-long interviews as afforded the "Four Mothers" on Channel 1's prestigious "Conference Call" program.

There is a major difference between selective coverage and publication of events and the fabrication of news. Israel's TV Channel 1 is accused of knowingly abetted an attempt by Israel's secret service to discredit Israel's right wing. On September 22, 1995, it aired a "swearing-in ceremony" with members of an extreme right wing group, the "Eyal" group.

Staged Eyal swearing-in ceremony by Secret Service (GSS) agent provocateur Avishai Raviv. Pictures published in newspaper Makor Rishon 5.12.97 (Many Thanks).

Interviewed, one of the group members talked about murdering Jews in retaliation for their peace policy. IMW immediately complained to the IBA that the item appeared staged, but the IBA denied this. Only after the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin on November 4, did the truth surface that the Eyal group was funded by Israel's General Security Services and that its members who had participated in the ceremony also admitted that the whole scene was in fact staged for the cameras.

In a different broadcast, Jewish residents of Kiryat Arba were portrayed as stealing the water of the city of Hebron. Shots of broken pipes and lack of running water in Arab houses were contrasted with the large Jewish community swimming pool. (8). This makes good pictures. But subsequently the truth became known that Israel supplied the city of Hebron with all the water it needs, but actually over 40% of the water pumped into the area was being stolen by Arab farmers. This fact was not divulged to the viewers. The IBA never apologized for the false statements and accusations.

Perhaps an even more serious breach of the public trust came about in what is known as the 'Butbul Affair'. Mr. Gabi Butbul, a member of the Shas political party, is also their representative on the Public Council Plenum of the IBA. By law, he is responsible for overseeing the operations of the IBA. And as part of his job, Mr. Butbul was outspoken in his criticism of the IBA's director- general, Mr. Motti Kirschenbaum. In an attempt to hush his legitimate criticism, researchers of the IBA's TV program "Popolitika" were sent to dig up private and public information regarding Mr. Butbul. The latter, when becoming aware of what was happening, complained to the Chairperson of the IBA, Professor Rina Shapira. Prof. Shapira appointed a committee of three to investigate the issue. The committee concluded that the complaint of Mr. Butbul is not without merit. Seeking direction from the Attorney-General's office, Prof. Shapira was informed that a police investigation of the matter was recommended (9). The IBA did not let the public know about this whole affair and its shadowy part in it.

The bias is not limited to the coverage of news events. It permeates almost any program which relates to current events. IMW undertook an in-depth study of the popular discussion show "Popolitika". It showed a consistent bias in favor of the left-wing political parties. Their representatives were given more air time and their statements were not interrupted by the moderator or the panel of journalists as often as those of right-wing representatives. Indeed, the panel of journalists, whose stated job is to ask questions, was strongly biased towards those who are in favor of the Oslo peace process.

Similarly, a study of three different satirical programs appearing in the First and Second TV channels showed that the majority of the jokes and skits, especially after the 1996 elections, were aimed towards the right wing and the religious segment of the population. This despite a more balanced presentation of themes prior to the elections.

The above mentioned cases are some examples of what is really happening in the Israeli media. Unfortunately, Israel's electronic media do not stand up to established criteria of fairness nor accuracy of publication. Too many Israeli reporters, editors and anchors, have not learned to disassociate their personal ideology from their profession.

Mr. Amnon Abramowitz, a well known journalist in Israel, has freely admitted that he will publish or withhold news depending on whether it does or does not agree with his ideology (10).

It is thus not surprising that the Israeli public is wary of the media. In a Gallup poll, taken in June, 1996, 50% of the population contended that the electronic media were not objective during the election campaign. Seventy per cent claimed that reporters allowed their political viewpoints to interfere with their coverage.

This is a sad state of affairs. Israel prides itself in its democratic values, but these are not respected by the Israeli media. The press can and should play a primary role in upholding democratic values. It is its duty to let the public know what is really happening. Its job as a watchdog is critical, especially in a country such as Israel. But because of its sad record, the public no longer believes the press. Just as the boy who cried wolf too many times, the Israeli press is no longer trusted. It will automatically criticize the Netanyahu government, whenever possible. Thus, even when the criticism is valid, it is ineffective. The public who voted for Mr. Netanyahu, just does not believe the media any more.

1. Ha'Aretz newspaper, Oct. 24, 1997, p. 8 of the weekly magazine.
2. D. Ben-Simon, A New Israel, (Aryeh Nir Publishers Ltd., 1997) p. 13.
3. B. Caspit, H. Cristal and I. Kfir, The Suicide, (Avivim Publishing Co., 1996), p. 183.
4. Ha'Aretz newspaper, Oct. 26, 1997, p. B1.
5. N. Barnea, The Seventh Eye, Vol. 3 (1996), p. 3.
6. TV Channel 1, "Shetach Hefker", June 5, 1996.
7. A. Bushinsky, The Seventh Eye, Vol. 10 (1997), p. 28. 8. TV Channel 1, Yoman program, Aug. 18, 1995.
9. Ha'Aretz newspaper, July 18, 1997, p. A10.
10. TV Channel 1, "Shetach Hefker", Dec. 20, 1995.

The author is the chairman of Israel's Media Watch (IMW), Israel's sole public media watchdog group. IMW is a registered non-profit organization whose major aim is assuring the ethical and fair conduct of the Israeli media.

---

This page hosted by GeocitiesGet your own FreeHome Page