Israel's
Electronic broadcasting:
Reporting or Managing the News ?
6. The Israeli Broadcast Media During the 1996 Election Campaign
Yisrael
Medad & Prof. Eli Pollak
Israel’s
Media Watch
"The Israel Broadcasting Authority’s obligations as a quasi-governmental institution include: objectivity, prevention of the politicization of the Authority, fairness, equality, no conflict of interests, and integrity in its decisions". Aaron Barak, President of Israel’s Supreme Court, Speech, May 13, 1996.
1.
Introduction - 2. Israel’s Broadcast Media - An
Overview
3. The
Ideological Identity and Credibility of Israel’s Media
4. The Media Treatment of the Oslo
Process
5. Rabin’s Assassination and the
following Week as Reflected in Channel One’s TV Broadcasts
6. The Israeli Broadcast Media During the 1996 Election
Campaign
7. Imbalance in the Israel Broadcasting
Authority’s Programs
8. Conclusion
9. References - Selected Bibliography of
Works Consulted - Notes
6. The Israeli Broadcast Media
During the 1996 Election Campaign |
| The Israel’s Media Watch staff
researched the transmissions of both television channels, One and Two, during the entire 60 day period leading up to ballot day. The programs selected for the study included all the news and central current affairs programs. The results indicated that every day there was a violation in one form or another of the law prohibiting election propaganda. The infractions were committed by reporters, broadcasters, show hosts, editors and producers and, on the side of the politicians, by representatives of the two major blocs as well as other guests on interview shows. They all exploited loopholes so as to promote a political stand. The majority of the infractions were done by members or sympathizers of the-then coalition parties, Labor and Meretz. There exist three options to enforce the election law: in a volunteer fashion by the broadcasting authorities themselves; by the Central Elections Committee; and by a judicial action brought by the Attorney-General’s office or by the State Prosecutor or the police. The networks did not exert themselves in enforcing that which is prohibited and basically ignored their responsibilities. For example, Channel Two’s main evening news broadcast included a short daily item entitled "Political Area". Reported by Itai Engel, it included unadulterated political campaign propaganda, mouthed, even if by people in the street, on behalf of the two prime minister candidates as well as a variety of parties. The complaints submitted by IMW to the Complaints’ Commissioner of the Second Authority were of no use. It was only after that IMW threatened to undertake legal steps and then, after tough negotiations with the legal advisor of the news corporation, that the item was eventually removed from the program, and then, after a long delay and just a few days before the elections. In another instance, when clearly election propaganda on behalf of Shimon Peres was broadcast on a Kol Yisrael program hosted by Yaron Enosh, the laconic reply received in the IMW office, signed by the IBA spokesperson, was that since by then the elections were over, there is no need to deal with a legal matter. Practically speaking, the volunteer submission option simply did not exist. The second way to uphold the law was through action taken by the Central Elections Committee. Its chairman, Justice Theodor Orr, saw himself as taking the path of the golden mean. As he explained in the CEC meeting held after the elections: "[I decided] to balance out between the two: on the one hand, between the wish to defend the right of expression, including, of course, that of the media which represents the soul of our democratic regime and between, on the other hand, the need to protect that which the law obligates". And he continued: "I admit that the task was not easy" (47) In a meeting with representatives of IMW, held on May 8, 1996, Orr explained that in any case, the CEC did not enforce the law. That was the job of the police. At most, the committee could prevent a broadcast or make use of its moral authority. It had no standing in cases of infractions already committed. In this instance, it was up to the police and the public prosecution to act. In reality, Orr prevented only one program which was construed, after being viewed in a studio, from being aired and that, on the eve of election day. The helplessness of the CEC and its chairman as well as the deprecation of the law demonstrated by the media can be judged by the following incident. In the aftermath of the broadcasting of prohibited electioneering, words of support for Shimon Peres by the Baba Baruch, a Sefardi Rabbi, on the Popolitika shown on May 13th, IMW requested that the CEC exert its responsibility to prevent a future electioneering occasion. Justice Orr decided, in line with the suggestion of IMW representatives present at the hearing, to order IBA D-G Kirschenbaum to personally and closely supervise the program to prevent any electioneering propaganda from being broadcast. The next program again dealt with election issues and the conduct of the candidates. IMW demanded a restraining order against the program and, in response, Orr decided that Kirschenbaum had not fulfilled his obligations. He further demanded that Kirschenbaum inform him before the broadcast time of the next program exactly the issues to be dealt with by the show as well as the list of invited guests to prevent the breaking of the law. Despite all this unprecedented judicial intervention, during the program broadcast the night before the elections, two of the panelists, Amnon Dankner and Shelly Yechimovitz, took advantage of their live appearance on the screen and made fun of Justice Orr’s decisions and proceeded to make statements of support for Shimon Peres and belittling Benjamin Netanyahu. Complaints about illegal electioneering that were made to the police and other judicial bodies such as the Attorney General’s Office, the third option, proved useless as well. They referred the complaints to the CEC. Thus was created a vicious circle. The situation did not go unnoticed and Razi Barkai, host of Channel Two’s media critique program, produced by Israel’s Education Network, "Media File", stated forthrightly: "we are all delinquents". (48) Daliah Ravikovitz also did not hide the truth of the media’s biased intervention: When the two candidates were interviewed [on the "Popolitika" program] we saw Peres being treated with royal honor, and Bibi was set upon as if by a pack of dogs". (49) |
| The law which was intended to prevent
unfair electioneering via the instruments of the mass media was contravened, in its spirit and in its letter, and there existed no possible way of preventing its infraction nor punishing those who acted illegally. Spokesmen of the Labor Party exhibited their confidence that the media was obviously helping them. The head of the Information and PR unit, Avraham Burg, was quoted by Ma’ariv’s political reporter, Shalom Yerushalmi, as saying: "What ‘shows’ better - news which is supposed to be objective or political propaganda?" (50) Haim Ramon, head of Peres’ personal election campaign unit, was also quite open in their admiration of the way the media was serving the Labor Party’s interests: "The Labor Party does not even require at this time [during the Grapes of Wrath Operation] and electioneering for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers are receiving maximum media coverage and they are promoting well the government’s policy". (51) The law prohibiting candidates from being shown indeed proved its logic as Yaron Dekel pointed out. Dekel, Kol Yisrael’s political party correspondent, appeared on the weekly "Yoman" program and when asked to comment on how the campaign was being run said: "In the past three weeks, when the electronic media outlets were blocked for Shimon Peres [because of the law], I think that there was a restriction in his ability to make headlines as he had done in the past two months. Peres in the headlines, Bibi in advertisements [was the reality], but not so much in the last three weeks." (52) The broadcast media failed to keep the law and thereby allowed the lists associated with the then governing coalition to significantly increase the gap of coverage between it and the opposition as well as between the candidates of the large parties vis-a-vis smaller, new or sectarian lists that hardly appeared at all. The principle of equality was violated and there was no balance to speak of. Advocate Yuval Karniel, the former legal advisor to the Second Authority, made the claim in a newspaper article that what defines who or what will be broadcast are "professional editorial considerations". He went on to explain: "The professional consideration obligates the presentation of a position championed by the opposition when it has news value, all the while distinguishing between a report and an expression of opinion or outlook". The intent of the law, Karniel explained, was to prevent the ‘taking over’, through the vehicle of a ‘professional consideration’, of air and screen time due to the many more possibilities of the coalition parties to influence the public via news broadcasts. According to Karniel, the media did not follow the law: "Today, the various media channels are ignoring, ever elegantly, the clear existing prohibition of the election law to broadcast propaganda on the television and radio". (53) In the end, it proved useless to try to depend on the editorial discretion of the media personnel or their sense of fair play. B. Infractions of the Ethics Code: Reliable Data and Fair Reporting In addition to the law, the media’s own ethics codes were consistently being violated. The following examples illustrate the problem. - "Mabat", on May 12th, presented a distorted report regarding video cassettes distributed to voters and dealing with the terror attacks then occurring. According to the report, "the Likud eliminated evil quotations said by Shimon Peres". Characterizing the statements as "evil" was a personal opinion of the reporter, stemming from his own ideological position. For after all, the quotations were authentic and backed by sources. - The entire affair of the supposed invalidation of the PLO Covenant during April 1996 was handled in a biased fashion, unreliably and incorrect as discussed above. - An attempt to kidnap a soldier on May 12th was relegated to insignificance and no true attempt was made to investigate the story. - On Memorial Day, April 23, a radio item was broadcast which included interviews with families who had lost relatives due to Arab terror. IMW researched and revealed that those interviewed were selected with the active help of one Yitzhak Frankenthal whose son had been kidnapped and murdered by Arab terrorists. Mr. Frankenthal, however, was a leading activist in the "Paths of Peace", a religious group advocating territorial withdrawal and supporting the Labor Party. Attempts by other bereaved parents, who disputed the current government policy, to appear on the program as well as others were thwarted. A promise, by IBA’s D-G, was given to Dr. Aryeh Bachrach, whose son was killed in Wadi Kelt, that an effort would be made to allow him air time but to no avail. The humor and satire programs were an especial source of media bias against Mr. Netanyahu. Election time is a unique period when one is dealing with elections. The essence of political satire is the humiliation and deprecation of politicians and parties. At election time, such satire can easily cross the boundaries of simple criticism to electioneering. The Supreme Court Justices took note of this problem when, in an earlier decision, they distinguished between artistic content material and political propaganda. It is our opinion that the value of art in a satirical sketch is relatively negligible when shown during election time. Indeed, its influence as a propaganda device is highlighted and therefore should be treated according to another standard. The determination of the two broadcasting authorities to grant free license to artists allowed the showing of humor and satire programs that contained unadulterated propaganda. During the election campaign, Channel One broadcast the "Cameri Quintet" and Channel Two, the "Chartzufim" and the "Zehu Zeh" programs. Examples of humor as prohibited electioneering material were - A song included in the Zehu Zeh show of April 29th described a salesman of antiquated objects singing of "a leader melting in the heat, yesterday angry and today a man of peace/ platforms of synthetic material...today before the elections...selling used material, second-hand...". In reply to a complaint by IMW, Mr. Yoel Rekem, the Second Authority’s Complaint’s Commissioner, wrote that "the darts of satire in Koby Luria’s song...are aimed, in my opinion, against Israeli politics in general and this, too, in a gentle hint...we found no reason to intervene...you r complaint was investigated and found groundless". (54) - The "Chartzufim" program, an Israeli version of the British "Spitting Images", brought satire down to a level of raunchiness unknown until then. Slogans such as "A Secure Peace = Safe Sex" were the norm. Ms. Limor Livnat, a Likud candidate, was shown instructing Netanyahu and other Likud candidates how to use condoms. Such low-level humor was utilized mostly against the Likud and religious parties, but not exclusively. Rafael Eitan, a Tzomet candidate, was held up as a stuttering fool who can’t remember a thing. Netanyahu was always shown with a violent streak, constantly striking Shimon Peres. And if there were any problems of communication between Peres and Yasser Arafat, it was always Peres’ fault. The "Chartzufim" writers even exploited Rabin’s death, portraying him as an angel in Heaven, observing the antics of his political inheritors. A IMW check of all 92 skits shown on the program during the 60 day pre-election day period when electioneering is banned, 57% of skits relating to the coalition were detrimental and negative (27 out of 47) whereas 73% of the skits dealing with the opposition parties were negative (33 out of 45). The "Cameri Quintet" of the IBA presented another problem. Two of its stars, Rami Hoiberger and Dov Navon, participated in electioneering clips on behalf of the Labor Party. The previous IBA Chairman, Aryeh Mekel, had set out IBA policy in this matter in a decision published on February 10, 1992, during that year’s election campaign to whit, no one participating in election commercials could appear as a performer on IBA programs during the 60 day period. Following an appeal to Director-General Kirschenbaum by IMW, he ratified that policy but only prevented a program that was to include the two in question during the week prior to polling day. C. Preventing Criticism and Halting Flow of Information An intolerable phenomenon, especially during a period of national debate and decision, was the policy to prevent persons who wished to criticize the electronic media performance and behavior from being allowed to air their points of view over the airwaves. Unfortunately, we witnessed incidents that raised doubts and questions concerning media ethics and the upholding of the law. On the first two days of May 1996, as mentioned earlier (see section 3), a prominent newspaper ad was published, signed by an outstanding cross-section of intellectuals demanding fairplay and objective reporting on the part of media personalities during the election campaign. The ad read: "out of concern for the democratic character of Israel, we call upon you, media personnel, to place the obligation to democracy and political fair play above your personal inclinations for this or that side. Journalists must draw a clear line between their right to express their opinions in op-ed columns and between their tasks as news editors and interviewers. The affording of a proper and fair platform for both candidates for the position of Prime Minister before the public is a professional-ethical obligation. Any act injurious to these principles is a stab at the heart of democracy". (55) Several of the various radio programs and television shows invited a number of the signees to appear and be interviewed. In the end, these interviews were canceled. Professor Gabriel Moked, who considers himself a member of the social Left and a non-party member of the Labor Party’s social affairs committee and Dr. Yuval Shteinetz, who supported the Likud, were asked to participate on the May 13th "Popolitika" program. At the last moment, they received an urgent announcement that "due to the intervention of authoritative elements within the IBA’s management", the invitation was recalled. Prof. Moked was again invited, this time to the "No Man’s Land" media critique show to be broadcast May 15th. His participation was canceled due to a strange (to him) excuse. Despite the fact that a taxi had already been ordered for him (as he had been informed) and only two hours after he had discussed his appearance with an editorial research assistant, he was told that as the Likud had withdrew its complaints regarding charges of bias in the broadcasting, his participation was no longer needed and he was not to come. Even though Moked protested that there was no connection between his criticism and the Likud’s complaints, he was still refused air time even after he became aware that, in fact, the Likud had not withdrawn their complaints. On May 21, the public opinion show, "Public Poll", was to have aired a debate entitled "The Media - Balanced or Leftist?". Dr. Shteinitz and a representative of the Left were asked to participate but the program was canceled the day before it was to have been broadcast. The reason given was that opposition had arisen within IBA circles. And on May 22, the Army Radio station, Galatz, requested Prof. Moked to appear live on one of its morning programs. But less than half an hour later, again he was told the invitation had been rescinded. The reason given was that the IBA D-G, Mordechai Kirschenbaum, opposed the discussion unless he was a participant. However, as he could not be available, the broadcast was canceled. (56) In a handwritten letter, entitled "A Strange Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Media" (57), Moked relates to the ominous ramifications of the media’s behavior: "All these incidents only strengthened me in my position that our media is not only suffering from a powerful haughtiness...[and] unity of ideology...but in addition, a significant portion of those who set the tone in the media are attempting to exert control in a super extreme radical note, much closer to the desires of the ‘New Historians’ to crumble the Israeli narrative rather than displaying a balanced line of support for the peace process". An outstanding example of the media’s ability to betray its professionalism is in a campaign anecdote found in the book, "The Committers of Suicide". The authors recall that during the "Grapes of Wrath" operation in April 1996, Shimon Peres, while on a tour of the north, shared a table and some beers with a group of journalists. Asked to comment on the harsh criticism of the military operation against Lebanon coming from the Israeli Arab community, Peres retorted: "those stupid Arabs". As the authors describe it: "The journalists were dumbfounded. For Peres, this was an act of political hari-kiri in the main square of the city. If his remarks were giving publicity, and they were recorded and spoken for the record, it could have brought about his premature end. Following a discussion among themselves, in the end, Peres’ words were not reported". (58) Not only were persons critical of the media’s role in the elections prevented from reaching the public but there were journalists who themselves yielded to self-censorship in accordance with their political outlook. D. The Last Week of the Elections and Polling Day The attempts of the media to influence the voters and to affect the elections’ outcome reached new heights during the last week on the campaign and the actual balloting day. Representative examples of their efforts are as follows:
|
||
The Israel Broadcasting Authority Law, the Second
Television and Radio |
IMW is a registered non-profit organization whose major aim is assuring the ethical and fair conduct of the Israeli media.
Return to Home
Page
Return to List of Papers
This page hosted by Geocities
Get
your own FreeHome
Page