4.    The Media Treatment of the Oslo Process

Beginning in late August 1993, at the time when the first news items began
appearing
about an agreement reached between Israel and the PLO, the media treatment
of this story - in
terms of relaying factual news, the setting-up of interviews and commentary
- was sympathetic
and mores, protective.

The television Channel One's main weekly political panel program,
"Popolitika", was
researched by IMW during the months March-July 1995 for a total of 19
broadcasts.  The
statistics pointed conclusively to a clear bias in presenting the views
held by the public regarding
the Oslo Process.

The program suffered an obvious lack of balance both in the amount of
representative
opinions expressed by the guests as well as the time devoted to the variety
of their opinions. 
The permanent panel of three journalists, who set the tone for the show,
was unbalanced in the
extreme.  Out of a cumulative total of 61 appearances by the panel members,
only two spoke
out against the process.  This is an important element as it is the panel
which creates the show's
character by not only asking the guests the questions but in their license
to state their own
opinions.

In addition, the amount of time divided between coalition and opposition
members of
the Knesset, the amount of appearance of Ministers and MKs and the
promoting of public
personalities to the detriment of others all contributed to the lack of
balance.

For example, Shimon Peres, the Foreign Minister, was afforded three unique
appearances, for unusual extended periods of time, without any other guests
at the table, all of
them following terror attacks on Israelis.  Over more than half a year, he
was the sole politician
to be granted such a platform.  This, for all intents and purposes, was
turning "Popolitika" into a
mouthpiece for the government.  The television screen had be conquered.
Meretz Minister
Shulamit Aloni starred in the program.  The selection of themes to be
discussed consistently
favored the government's policy.

Another IMW research paper reviewed 22 programs of the "Yoman" Friday night
weekly news summary show.  The show presents an in-depth treatment of the
week's news
items.  The paper dealt with five months of broadcasting between March-July
during 1995. 
This show too displayed a biased approach on behalf of the government
spokesmen in terms of
the time permitted them to put their case across, the amount of their
appearances as well as
questionable editing methodology.  Another study on the treatment, during
one week, of a
campaign slogan issue on Jerusalem, again indicated, this time on both the
First and Second
Channels, a clear preference for the Labor-Meretz coalition point of view.

The "Yoman" program also initiated a basic personal-view column which
introduced
formal editorializing in the guise of commentary.  Mr. Amnon Avramovitz, an
enthusiastic
supporter of Oslo, was allowed to dominate the column, entitled
"Accounting", expressing his
own outlook to a large audience on a public broadcasting network.  A
petition to the High
Court of Justice, 4453/95, with the Chief Justice sitting in session, did
not correct the inherent
imbalance.  Avramovitz appeared, in a period of over a year, in more than
85% of the columns
broadcast despite the fact that the IBA committed itself before the judges
to maintain the
balance and variety obligated by the law.

The general public support for the Oslo Process was made possible by the
letter signed
by the PLO's Arafat and addressed to Yitzhak Rabin whereby the PLO Chairman
committed
himself to invalidate those elements of the Covenant which were
incompatible with the peace
accord.  In April 1996, two and one-half years later, then-Prime Minister
Shimon Peres
announced that Arafat had canceled the Covenant, calling it an event of
historic proportions. 
The opposition lambasted Peres, saying that the Covenant had simply
undergone a sleight-of-
the-hand maneuver, actually be shunted off to a sub-committee of the PA's
legislative council 
Only one journalist, Uzi Benziman of "Ha'Aretz", published claims by MK
Benny Begin, backed
up by filmed material of the PA council session and other statements from
Palestinian sources
that were not only all but ignored by the rest of the Israel media but
ridiculed as well.

Recently, in an article published in the "Ma'ariv" daily (27), Joel
Singer, the special Oslo
legal advisor at the time, revealed that not only was Begin correct in his
suspicions but that
Peres himself was an active participant together with Arafat in creating
the illusion that the
Covenant was altered, thus permitting Arafat to avoid fulfilling his
obligations under the terms
of the Oslo accords.  Begin's opinion on the behavior of the media was biting:

"the media joined in on the scam most willingly.  Laziness, negligence,
as well
as political interests linked up together.  Except for Uzi Benziman, no one
stood up to ask, to press, to investigate". (28)

MK Begin was involved in another affair in which the media was perceived
as serving
the personal preferences of various editors and reporters rather than the
public's right to know. 
Beginning in late January 994, Mr. Begin became aware of the existence of
video tapes in which
were recorded speeches of Yasser Arafat in the Arabic language.  In these
appearances, Arafat
used terminology that was far from the expected language of peace in
accordance with the Oslo
accords.  In fact, Arafat was expressing himself in the most maximalist
positions as championed
in the PLO Covenant, including allusions to armed struggle, that is, terror.

Begin repeatedly attempted to interest the editors of the two main
television  news
programs.  He asked to be interviewed and that selections from the tapes be
broadcast.  As he
later recalled (29 ), some four months passed before he was afforded air
time on Channel One. 
Interestingly enough, the reason he finally managed to appear was that
Shimon Peres, in a
session of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, has accused
Begin of dealing
in tampered tapes, suggesting that Begin was being less than honest as to
the contents of
Arafat's speeches.  It was this angle, that perhaps the tapes were
worthless, that interested the
news editors.  It was possibly their hope that the tapes would prove
unsubstantiated.

Once a month, for over four years, the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace
Studies at Tel
Aviv University has been publishing a "Peace Index" on various issues,
political, social and
cultural, related to the evolving peace process.  The project is headed by
Professor Efraim Yaar
and Doctor Tamar Herman and the public opinion poll itself is carried out
by the Modiin Ezrachi
firm.  The Ha'Aretz newspaper faithfully provides full coverage to the
monthly report.  Unlike
other polls, the Peace Index includes in its representative sampling
residents of kibbutzim and
the communities in Judea and Samaria.

The July 1998 Index included two questions regarding the performance of
the media
within the Oslo peace process.  The first question was: "does the Israeli
media influence the
public's support of or its opposition to the peace process?".  The answers
were

Not at all 11%
Not much 22%
Significantly 28%
Greatly 34%
No opinion 5%

The second question was: "in your general opinion, does the Israeli media
report objectively
about the peace process or are its reports biased more to the support of
the process or more in
opposition to it?".  The replies were as follows:

Tend to support 46%
Tend to oppose 13%
The reporting is objective 34%
No opinion 7%

These results point to the trend amidst the general public which considers
the media
itself to be a player of the political stage, involved and influencing that
what is happening.  The
size of the headline, the favorable commentary, the "little" stories from
behind the scenes, the
minimizing of certain news items among other instances are the instruments
which were
manipulated by the media in its efforts to create a positive public opinion
relating to the peace
process.

Another method of managing the news was the publishing of derogatory
commentary, bordering on the ridiculous.  Following the revelation of
Arafat’s infamous Johannesburg speech in May 1994, in which he called for
the faithful to practice jihad, Amnon Avramovitz quoted approvingly the
words of Shlomo Gur, then assistant to Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi
Beilin, who said in response that the recording "reminded me of a recording
of Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef [the Shas
Rabbinical mentor]". (30)  The Second Television Authority’s satire
program, "Chartzufim" [in ‘Spitting Image’ style], was criticized for its
treatment of Arafat, turning him into an almost lovable and cute doll,
easing his acceptance as a cultural icon by the Israeli public.

Ari Shavit summed up the positive relationship that the media had
developed vis-a-vis the Oslo process thus: 

"In present-day Israel, there exists an almost absolute identity between
those
persons dedicated to the idea of peace, in its most radical-dovish version,
and the journalists, lawyers and academics who are charged with setting the
civil and legal norms and on the flow of information...a certain camp, very
well defined, fulfills three or four functions: they are the players, the
judge, they report and they explain the process on the various media
outlet".  (31)

In a report composed by Israel Media Resource director, David Bedein, and
who was present at most, if not all, the press conferences held during the
first two years of the Oslo process, can be found several instances in
which the media preferred to skip over uncomfortable issues, ignoring to
report them.  These included the non-condemnation of terror acts, the
matter of the invalidation of the Palestinian Covenant, the extradition of
murderers, the unclarity expressed by Palestinian spokespersons when
relating to the "Right of Return" and the continuation of the "armed
struggle".  One especial case was the refusal to report on and analyze the
agreement worked out in Egypt in December 1995 between Arafat and the Hamas
which provided the latter with the ‘green light’ to kill.  Bedein notes the
use of superlatives when describing diplomatic moves during the talks on
the Declaration of Principles (DOP), when media personnel employed semantic
weapons to convince their audience.  Another case in point is the
preferential treatment afforded certain research institutes,  which
supported the Oslo route, which then had their research fellows appear on
the broadcasting media.

Reporters who dared to criticize the process or to publish unfavorable
reports were pressured in certain ways to change their tune or to risk a
deep freeze.    For example, Bedein claims that after Ehud Ya’ari, IBA’s
Arab affairs senior correspondent, was interviewed in Ma’ariv in May 1994,
and strongly criticized the Israeli negotiating team’s conception, he never
repeated his criticism as if he was forced to recant.  He found a sort of
refuge for independent thought when he published English-language articles
critical of the Oslo process in the Jerusalem Report.

Pinchas Inbari, reporter and commentator on Arab affairs in Judea, Samaria
and Gaza (YESHA) for the now  defunct Al HaMishmar daily, expressed
professional frustration in private conversations.  He complained that the
editorial line adopted by his paper mostly ignored the essence of the
material he was reporting, obtained from central figures in the Palestinian
and PLO leadership.  Inbari rarely, if ever, appeared on the electronic
media and was not given a chance, unlike many other print journalists, to
air their views over the electronic broadcasting networks.

Another aspect of media bias is the hostility displayed by certain media
persons against one particular ideological-political camp.  The antagonism
shown towards the Israelis resident in the administered territories beyond
the former Green Line by reporters in their news items was clearly
expressed in the framework of their stories on Oslo.  Only recently, Guy
Kotev, Kol Yisrael’s territories’ reporter, allowed an insight into the
heart of the Israeli media and its approach to the question of the Jewish
residents in YESHA.  Interviewed on Kol Yisrael (32 ), Kotev admitted to
Shelly Yechimovitz, that the media’s dealing with actions conducted not
always within the confines of the law by Jews versus those accomplished by
Arabs is always louder and more extensive.  He also revealed that many Arab
acts of low-level violence against Jewish residents never were reported in
any minimal form.  This, he made clear, was due to the personal preferences
of the reporters and their editors.

Many complaints are to be found in IMW files regarding the lack of
professional ethical behavior in the reporting on issues connected with the
so-called "settlers" and their life in their communities.  One special
item, for example, was a report broadcast in August 1995 dealing with water
scarcity in the Hebron area (see 7F below).  Despite the fact that it was
brought to the attention of the IBA ombudsman that the story first
broadcast on the Yeoman show, no correction or apology was issued.  In
fact, the summer of 1998 saw a basic replay of that first story: Israel is
responsible for the dearth of water in that region.  A Jewish swimming pool
was counterpointed with an empty faucet, again and again.

One of the main faults we found with the Israeli media during this period
was its treatment of the mass public protest movement and its multitude of
groups and organizations.  Many demonstrations were conducted and the
interplay with the media was complex.  While the scenes of sit-downs and
marches were transmitted, and while the leaders voiced their support for
non-violent actions, the media consistently characterized the
demonstrations, especially of the "This Is Out Land" group, as "violent"
and preferred  pictures of occasional rambunctiousness.  On the other side
of the political fence, when in December 1993, eighty professors and
lecturers of the Professors for A Strong Israel demonstrated against the
IBA’s media bias, the television saw fit to ignore the activity.  This
phenomenon of media bias, which in turn affected the activities of
extra-parliamentary groups, causing a heightening of tension in the public
political and social climate is treated in a new book that was published in
the summer of 1998.  Written by Professor Gadi Wolfsfeld of the Hebrew
University’s Communications Department, the book, "Media and Political
Conflict", devotes two full chapters discussing the inter-relations between
the media as a reporting institution and the pervasive
influence it generates because of the way it reports the news and allows or
limits discussion of issues (see pgs. 77-123 in particular).

Another element of Israel’s media-political complex as it is reflected in
the treatment of the Oslo process was the cooperation that developed in
regard to the activities of the General Security Services agent
provocateur, Avishai Raviv.  The electronic media, and especially Channel
One television, chose Raviv as their "media star" and made him into a
symbol of the entire anti-Oslo camp, those the late Prime Minister Rabin
measurably called "the extreme Right".  The practical result of this media
concentration on Avishai Raviv was that the insignificant fringe was pushed
front and center.  After all, if Raviv and his ilk repeatedly are displayed
on the television screens while, at the same time, the media consumer is
unaware of the true strength of these activists, what happens is the
creation of a virtual reality.  This virtual reality had little in common
with the actual reality.  The media contributed, in an irresponsible
fashion, to the driving of a wedge between Israel’s citizens.

The truth of the discomforting role played, knowingly or otherwise, by the
media in the Raviv affair was revealed in the fall of 1997 when, after a
long struggle, a secret portion of the Shamgar Inquiry Commission’s report
dealing with Raviv was released for publication.  The Commission,
established to investigate the events leading to the assassination of
Rabin, wrote in their official report:

"Eyal...existed, for all intents and purposes, only in the publications of
Avishai Raviv and through the coverage afforded him by the television" (33)

"All that time, [Raviv] continued in his contacts with the media in order to
portray Eyal as an real organization and received assistance  from the
television in that it broadcast a swearing-in ceremony, that was but a
put-on
show, that anyone who was present there had to be aware that indeed it was
a show" (34)

That swearing-in ceremony, mentioned in the report, was shown on Channel
One’s "Yoman" program in late September 1995.  IMW complained to the IBA
heads at the time that we suspected a fabricated presentation.
Subsequently, the police were instructed by then Attorney-General Michael
Ben-Yair to initiate a criminal investigation.  As of this writing (October
1, 1998), no charges have been brought and the Attorney-General’s office as
well as the State Prosecutor’s office have written us that they are still
investigating.


In another media manipulation event which sought to portray the right-wing
as a criminal element, Raviv assumed responsibility in October 1995 for a
murder of an Arab resident of the village of Halhul, near Hebron.  The
media prominently and repeatedly broadcast the statement, as was its
obligation, but neglected to engage in its own independent investigation.
In fact, on the "Popolitika" program a few days later, Moshe Feiglin of the
"This Is Our Land" protest movement was ridiculed when he suggested that
the Eyal group had nothing to do with the crime.

Prominent government ministers, especially those from the extreme Left,
such as Yossi Sarid, exploited the incident and the pronouncements of Raviv
to denigrate the entire right wing as well as calling for the removal of
Hebron’s Jewish population in response.  All during this period of over a
week, as noted, the media some how "lost" its ability to act on its own.
Even after it eventually became known that the Arab was killed by other
Arabs for criminal reasons, the lack of balance in the media coverage
continued.  The fact that GSS officers did not inform immediately their
government supervisors that, as Raviv was their agent, the murder had not
been committed by him and that the attacks by ministers on the Right were
baseless, was a further symptom of the symbiosis that had developed between
establishment bodies and the media in the furtherance of partisan political
goals.

The tension that had formed between the media and their sympathizers
amongst the academic community, natural allies in the reality of Israel,
broke out into the open in March 1996.  At the height of the series of Arab
terror attacks at the time, which involved the horrendous results of
suicide bombers, Professor Shlomo Avineri, former Director-General of the
Foreign Ministry and a Labor Party member, a founder of the 77 Circle,
attacked the media coverage of the events.  First appearing on the "New
Evening" show (35), he called Chaim Yavin, anchorman of the main evening
news broadcast on Channel One TV, "a collaborator of the Hamas" and further
described him as the "national crybaby".  In another interview, this time
in the presence of Yavin, Avineri stated that he was acting "at the time as
one who is concerned with the public’s morale" (36).

It was obvious to all that it was actually the supreme electoral interest
of the Labor party that concerned Prof. Avineri.  The more the coverage of
terror attacks, the more negative effect they would have on the election
chances of Labor on polling day which had by then been set for May 26.
There is then yet another question that should be asked: as personalities
opposed to the government’s position were denied air time during the
election campaign (noted below), why did the IBA permit a discussion of
Avineri’s criticism to be aired?

Dr. Raya Epstein, who researches the cultural, political and ideological
sources of totalitarianism, arrived at a penetrating conclusion, one that
paralleled those of Ari Shavit and Ben-Dror Yemini dealt with above,
concerning the role played by clique of Israel’s mass media.  According to
Epstein, Israeli democracy is unique  and is an outlook that "forces
itself" with the aid of elites whose roots are to be found in pre-state
Zionist socialism.  Epstein presents of thesis that it was this
interpretation of democracy which allowed the so-called "peace camp" to
plant its version of utopia into the consciousness of society as, what she
terms, "compatible democracy".  She explains:

"[‘the peace camp’] forces Israeli society to go in this single path
which it itself
has laid out, neutralizing all opposition and protest by portraying them
as anti-
democratic...the media mobilization, with all its tremendous  power, on
behalf
of the attainment of this goal, allows an indoctrination of the people to
take place...
it is abundantly clear that the power which forces left-wing radicalism
on the daily
agenda of the Israeli public is the mass media.  It makes no difference if
the media is aware or unaware of its campaign against democracy.  In this
matter, the usually
heard remark from media personnel, often in all honesty, that their
left-wing inclinations do not prevent them from being neutral, objective
and professional, is
lacking all foundation".  (37)

Supporting testimony of Epstein’s theory is included in an op-ed article
written by the veteran press journalist, Yisrael Rosenblatt, who previously
served as the Ombudsman of the Ma’ariv daily.  Concerned by the global
phenomenon of a reducement in the credibility of the media, Rosenblatt
deals with the special situation in Israel and points to the media being
"out to get" Netanyahu, as he sees it.  He describes the reality as:

"Woe to anyone who attempts to doubt the considerations [of the media] to
undermine its claims or to is skeptical of its professional integrity.
The media
possesses standard ammunition (‘danger to freedom of expression’, ‘clamping
down on criticism’, ‘watchdogs of democracy’) which has proven its
worth...if
at anytime previously, the left-wing character of the media was rejected,
today
everyone in the profession admits it, for indeed, such is the reality.
In place of
a total denial, there is humorous apologetics: from ‘there is no such
thing as an
objective journalist’ to ‘journalists are lefties but the media isn’t’."
(38)

And, as if to close the circle, at a conference of Israeli and Palestinian
journalists convened in July 1998 on Rhodes and sponsored by UNICEF, Chaim
Yavin, veteran anchorman of IBA’s television news, declared, in reaction to
Palestinian claims of censorship and lack of understanding on the part of
the Israeli press and media, that "without the Israeli press, there would
have been no peace process.  Without the Israeli press, the Intifada would
not have led to Oslo.  That was a product of Israel’s freedom of the press.
The press is the watchdog of Israeli democracy".  (39)