ladaat  

Israel's Electronic broadcasting:
Reporting or Managing the News ?

8.    Conclusion

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

8.    Conclusion

The foregoing are representative examples from among hundreds of
complaints documented by Israel’s Media Watch and sent to the IBA’s
ombudsman, Viktor Grayevsky.  In many cases, the responses of elements
within the IBA have not denied the facts but rather disagreed subjectively
as to the seriousness of the wrongdoing.  Amnon Nadav, director of Kol
Yisrael radio, who was interviewed by Shelly Yechimovitz on her program on
March 3, 1998, contributed this insight into the problem existing within
the IBA:

"Until the period of Mordechai Kirschenbaum, the demands made of us
were maximalist in that we should uproot any expressions of personal
opinion over the radio and television".

The cumulation of so many instances, throughout so many programs, whether
in news programs, commentary or entertainment, point to a clear trend of
imbalance in the broadcasts of the IBA in favor of what is termed "left".
It was Allen K. Simpson, a sharp critic of the American media who
delineated the dangers in the lack of media ethics:

"The media have largely abandoned all basics of good journalism in favor of
slanted, deceptive and ruthlessly prosecutorial reporting.  The public
always gets the story but seldom gets the truth".

Israel’s Attorney-General, Elyakim Rubinstein, is also aware of the
shortcomings of the Israeli media.  In a speech before the delegates of the
Journalists Association, he spoke out about some of the stains that should
be cleaned out, among them "superficial, tendentious and unfair" (73)

The patterns of the Israeli media, essentially, are not too different than
those of mass media in other countries in the fields of non-ethical and
non-professional behavior.  On the shelves of university libraries can be
found many volumes all dealing with ethics in broadcasting and other media
activity.  The power concentrated in the media naturally attracts criticism
and suspicion.  It is no coincidence that every journalist society has a
code of ethics.  The ability of the media to influence public opinion
demands  effective supervisory institutions.

Israel’s problems with the media are of another, more acute, nature.  This
reality exists not only because of the severe and repetitive character of
the infractions of the ethics’ code but because of the nature of Israeli
society within a small geographical unit.  This reality allows for a
greater influence by the electronic media over the media consumers.

Moreover, the media elite has succeeded in preventing the entry of
journalists with different approaches and outlooks while defending
themselves from any effective form of public supervision.  One such
defensive weapon has been the bandying about of such catch phrases such as
"censorship",
"injury to democracy" and "interfering with the right to freedom of
expression" against any and all criticism, all they while exploiting their
position as media operatives.

The question which we asked ourselves at the outset of this report was "is
the essence  of Israel’s electronic broadcasting the reporting of news or
news management?".  Our findings, and more than the data but the statements
of central media persons themselves, provide the answer:  Israel’s
electronic media sees its role not only to report to its viewers and
listeners and to comment on the news, that is, to act as an agent, but to
direct and manage the news so as to set the public agenda.
The news becomes an instrument to be manipulated.  This is a mobilized
media and in the end, one that  presents a danger to democracy.


As this report was going to print, former IBA Director-General, Mordechai
Kirschenbaum, made the following statement in an interview published in the
Yediot Ahronot "Seven Days" Magazine, September 18, 1998, p. 78:  "we (the
IBA) were politically stigmatized, naturally, from the moment Netanyahu
came to power because Netanyahu’s right-wing cannot tolerate free
television.  From the moment different views are brought to them, they
become deprived.  They possess no tolerance.  In all that is connected to
incitement against democratic institutions, including the IBA, and against
rivals from opposing political camps, Netanyahu exhibits fascist
tendencies, while, as it were, carrying high the flag of liberalism"


 
 
 

   

 

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 GeocitiesgeocitiesGet your own FreeHome Page