Israel's Media Watch
update report # 45

May 23, 2000

Contents:
-  IMW News
-  Words of Wisdom
-  Media News (Israel and Other)
- Suspend Zohai Bahlul, a TV reporter
- The Palestinian Authority has opened a new radio station in Abu Dis
- Talk shows: Hitting bottom
- Military correspondents are shut out of Lebanon

For those who understand Hebrew - IMW's radio media show can be heard on Arutz 7
every Sunday morning between 8 and 9 AM at
105.2 FM or 1143 AM or on the Internet http://www.a7.org

And, again, a reminder.
Many of our supporters have not as yet renewed their annual membership subscriptions.
IMW exists on the donations of the public. 
Our ability to continue to serve Israel's media consumers is severely impaired. 
We would appreciate receiving your recognition of our work on your behalf.

IMW News

1. IMW has continued making complaints to the IBA ombudsman regarding
personal expressions by interviewers, reporters and newsreaders.  In addition, a special
request was made of the IBA heads to suspend Zohai Bahlul, a TV reporter,
who appeared on the morning talk show, "Good Morning Israel" on May 22 and made a
comparison of equality between the firebombing injury of 2 year old Shalev Shabat and the
death by rubber-bullet wound of a 15 year old Arab in Ramallah.
IMW pointed out that on the one hand there was a teenager who, of his own free
will, participated in a violent demonstration placing himself in danger even though the
rubber bulltes were menat to injure, not kill and himself trying to cause damage. 
On the other, there was an infant riding in a civilian car being attacked
by an adult who intended to kill.

2. IMW was informed by the IBA ombudsman that as a result of our complaint
concerning the use of music as a subliminal politica message, he will be investigating
this aspect of ethical conduct.  Nevertheless, our specific complaint was found
incorrect as the editor was a substitute and claimed he knew nothing of the
song he had played.

Words of Wisdom

1. (in response to a question regarding stinging criticism by significant
portions of the media of Prime Minister Ehud Bark's performance):

"Since the media, justly, very much desires peace, and it has a certain problem
with the Middle East, it sends a Prime Minister with a tremendous promise and
expectations [from amongst] candidates who promise difficult things which
actually are very hard to fulfill and then, every time, this scenario repeats
itself: within a year since the last elections we [in the media] are met with
a disappointment because the reality doesn't meet our expectations...
as long as he is a contractor to carry out the next withdrawal and if possible
to achieve peace, then this feeling of depression is not formed and
we don't make accounts [with the Prime Minister]".
- Ari Shavit, Ha'Aretz columnist, "Media File" program, ETV, Channel Two,
May 20, 2000

2. "The wars of today present new challenges to the commanders and planners...like
the need to take the media and public opinion into consideration above all.
One of the first steps undertaken by Brig. General Doron Almog when he became head of
the IDF Branch of Planning and Instruction was the framing of a new command dealing
with the relationship to the media.  'The media is not the enemy and it has the
power to influence the morale of the soldiers and citizens and the public support for the army
and it is important that the contacts with it be based on understanding and cooperation. 
The command orders the officers to impress upon the soldiers that their activity
is open to the media and their subsequent behavior must take that fact into consideration."
- From an interview with outgoing High Commander Brig. General Doron Almog,
BaMachaneh Army Weekly, May 19, 2000, p. 9

Media News (Israel)

1. NEW P.A. RADIO STATION IN ABU DIS
Arutz 7 News, May 21, 2000

The Palestinian Authority has opened a new radio station in Abu Dis, named
Voice of Al Quds  (Jerusalem).  Feisal Husseini, responsible for Jerusalem
affairs within the PA, was on hand for yesterday's dedication ceremony.
Husseini and Palestinian Legislative Council member Hashem Abed Al-Kader
declared that the station would enable the residents of eastern Jerusalem
"to be more connected to the Palestinian Authority."  It was noted that the
station's location was merely temporary, "and would soon be moved to within
the borders of Jerusalem."

2.(note:  IMW has complained about the appearance on a late night talk show,
"Cleavage" on Channel Two, of an actress who was wearing nothing except
her sandals)

Ha'Aretz, May 22, 2000
Talk shows: Hitting bottom
By Ruta Kupfer

After a difficult start, Yair Lapid's show twice made the top ten in
ratings last week. The special with Likud chairman MK Ariel Sharon on the
eve of Memorial Day was in fifth place, and was thus the talk show with the
most viewers that week.Lapid's regularly scheduled Thursday show was number
7. The breakthrough occurred two weeks ago with his interview with Haim
Zinowitz, the "burnt singer." Every show waits for such a moment of
television, and successful programs sometimes owe their success to such
events.

It would have been better, of course, if all the details had not been
revealed prior to the show, but nonetheless the dramatic moment of lifting
the mask occurred there, and 31 percent of the viewers came along to see it
happen.

In these days of drought, 31 percent is a lot, even if ultimately they were
weighted into the less impressive figure of 22.9 percent for the entire
program. Viewer patience with talk shows is dwindling.

If Dan Shilon's show once attracted 37 percent of the viewers, the talk
shows of today they are happy to get as much as 10 percent less. Here are
some figures that will testify to the process that has taken place in
recent years. At the end of April, "Avraham and Yaakov" made it to ninth
place with 15.8 percent. These days Kobi Meidan and Avri Gilad are not
getting any more than this, perhaps because the program broadcast right
after them is is "Zinzana," an Israeli drama, and not an attractive
American show like "Ally McBeal" or "Sex and the City."

And perhaps also because the public is a bit nauseated by the saintly duo
that parades the needy before them. Half a year ago they were better off,
with 19.7 percent.

Two years ago Avri Gilad with "It Will Be OK, attracted 21.6 percent of the
viewers, and half a year before that, in October 1997, he was even pulling
in 31.7 percent. This information is no secret.

Everyone is aware that television viewing, and especially of Channel Two,
has gone down, but this is always explained away by changes in the habits
of Israelis rather than blamed on the television offerings. The break-up of
the circle of "Dan Shilon Live" was supposed to have marked the end of an
era. The end of the era of blah-blah perhaps.

The game show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" has become, as it has world
wide, a top-notch success, and it could only have been expected that on its
coat tails there would be an attempt to put on other game shows, but it
remains on its own on the commercial channel, surrounded by talk shows that
are easier and cheaper to produce.

Lapid can be proud not only of his ratings - his show is head and shoulders
above the other talk shows, like "Rafi Reshef" and "A New Week with Amnon
Levy." He is also part of Reshet's successful schedule for Thursdays, to
which people who do not generally like talk shows also tune in. As for
Lapid, he does not make it hard for them.

He still maintains a certain dignity (true, he has not been at Channel Two
for very long), he expresses himself clearly, asks intelligent questions
(even citing Rilke), shows professionalism and invites a variety of people
in whom it is apparent he takes an interest.

The program does have some weaknesses. Lapid is a nice person, aware that
he does not know how to apply pressure to his guests and sometimes he makes
an effort when this is not necessary. In the case of the "burnt singer" he
tried to berate Zinowitz for the scam, and this sounded bad.

The whole comic side of the show is not up to snuff, and the integration of
the former "Bnot Pessia" drag group in its new incarnation evoked
unpleasant memories of Amnon Levy's show when it was on Channel One. The
transition last Thursday from an interview format with a few selected
guests to "lots of things," as Lapid put it, is not encouraging.

The uniqueness of this show, at present, is that Lapid succeeds in carrying
on a cultured conversation with his guests, without trying to link them up
with other guests to whom they have no connection. Lapid in effect has
undergone a process opposite to that undergone by Amnon Levy, who used to
run a sympathetic, surprising show on Channel One, and was suddenly
completely bent by the bright lights of Channel Two.

On the original show there was kind of relaxed chattiness of which not a
trace remains. The feeling of a living room on the screen has turned into
something grotesque in a huge, glittery space, flooded with light, with a
large and noisy orchestra, guests that include a model who appeared for one
second in a commercial, a politician with tedious reminiscences of his
childhood, an athlete who also knows how to sing (or maybe not, but agrees
to do so).

Who has all these people in their living room at once? And Levy deals with
all of them artificially, fawningly, with phony laughter at the stupid
jokes they tell - and with 17.4 percent on a good week. The only thing
missing on Levy's show is guests with heartrending human interest stories.
They would come, for sure. But it's just that they have all committed
themselves to appear on "Avraham and Yaakov" or "Rafi Reshef."

Reshef's show, which is also no longer at the top of the charts, and the
contents of which cannot be explained away by the public's taste, is the
most annoying and disgusting of all the talk shows. Every week when it
seems a new nadir in exploiting the unfortunates of this country has been
reached, along comes another and breaks the record.

One time it was Sharon Franco, who was buried under the rubble of a
building in the earthquake in Turkey, and on the program she was confronted
with her doctor. Another time it was a girl who was invited to the show a
month after her parents were killed in a traffic accident, and to comfort
her two presenters from the Children's Channel came along, and among other
things talked about their past in commercials.

This week it was Tahal Ran, who up until age 16 was hospitalized six times
in mental hospitals. Reshef pressured her, directed her to painful places
and in the end there were tears. There always are. He will not relent until
this happens, and then at the dramatic climax, to give her the opportunity
to choose a song, and for the orchestra to dedicate it to her.

The role of the empty chair as a catalyst for tears is so very familiar
that during the last program, Ran kept looking over her shoulder to see who
had been brought for her - maybe Shlomo Artzi, about whom she spoke, would
sing in her honor. (No, we'll make do with the orchestra, says Reshef.) The
empty chair game only serves as a stage for society's needy.

Sometimes the selection of the guests for it is so insensitive as to be
insulting. For example, the time Likud MK Meir Sheetrit's dog was the
surprise guest when Sheetrit was finance minister during a period of heavy
unemployment, and the dog appeared wearing a Versace waistcoat.

A guest this week was Nirit Bakshi, the beauty queen and a walking
advertisement for the "Miss Universe" show that will be broadcast Saturday
night. She was the lynchpin of the show, and they kept getting back to her.
For example, when Reshef interviewed Absorption Minister Yuli Tamir about
the harsh things she had said about MK (Labor) Yael Dayan in Ha'aretz,
Bakshi giggled. "What, are you shocked, Nirit?" he asked.

Tamir, who wrongly supposed that this was a question of interest to
someone, tried to reply, and Reshef cut her off to get to the really
important things. "Okay, Nirit, now here's a picture of Yuli," he said.
"We'll take her back to the beautiful things, and as you see she's marching
in a Scout parade, and no more and no less was chosen beauty queen of the
parade. You should know that sitting next to you is a serious competitor."

Then, when he asked Tahal Ran about her desire to have a family, she said
emotionally, "I want to be a mother, but I'm very frightened," and Reshef
immediately went on: "Good, in a moment we'll even dedicate a song to you,
but let's take advantage of the fact that Nirit is here, and from the
moment she returned to Israel she has been enlisted in a project sponsored
by L'isha (women's magazine) called 'No More Violence.'" And to Nirit: "You
even have a pin" to mark the struggle.

The exploitation that emanates from this show makes it even harder to bear
than "Avraham and Yaakov," which is devoted in its entirety to human
interest stories. With them, at least, it seems as though they are really
interested in helping their guests and not only in (unsuccessfully) making
a successful program, but in any case the results are abysmal.

Reshef's previous media persona was familiar before Channel Two, and the
change in it is so radical that it is impossible to interpret it as a new
interest he supposedly has in such scandalous matters but rather as crude
cynicism.

And to return for a moment to Lapid, the comparison to Merav Michaeli, who
has replaced him on the personal interview program on Channel Three, is in
his favor. The "Wallah" so frequently emitted by Michaeli stirs up profound
longings for Lapid's coy charm, for which he was subject to heavy criticism.

If the prevailing assumption is that on an interview show it is necessary
to know what to ask, in Michaeli's case one could make do with the
interviewer's knowing how to frame a question. Here is a dialogue between
her and Eran Tsur: "Emotional drought, we've been through a desert. But
your desert is long and you are umm ummm." Tsur. "Yes, what's the question?"

And later in the same interview: "I would really be happy to tell you what
I wanted to tell you," but she got confused and forgot. It happens, right?
Too often. The sense is that Michaeli is using typical Israeli interview
tactics - with no advance preparation, we'll talk, and whatever happens,
happens.

But in the interview with Gil Riba she noted that extensive research had
been done. She said that during the week prior to the interview she had
read more gossip columns than she had ever read in her life, and
nonetheless she managed to cite them with many inaccuracies. "How come a
word of Arabic doesn't flip out of you now and then when you're
broadcasting in Hebrew?" she asked Zohair Bahaloul on Thursday night. Maybe
because professional announcers aren't supposed to have words "flip out" of
them.

She knows this. On the radio she deals with such problems quite well. Maybe
the dosage of music and chatter on radio shows is more suited to her. Half
an hour with one person on television, especially when you don't know how
to interview, and with the help of phone calls coming into the studio from
viewers (during which they criticize her for her stupid questions), can
seem to go on forever.

Perhaps it is simply a less threatening medium. On her previous shows on
Channels One and Two, Michaeli drew attention to herself - not necessarily
a negative television quality. But this becomes problematic when the
program is a half hour personal interview.

Lapid also likes to talk about himself, but with him it looks like an
interviewing tactic, a means of eliciting information, whereas Michaeli
simply wants to talk about herself, her constant battle with her weight (as
with National Religious Party MK Shaul Yahalom, who wondered aloud when she
would stop talking to him about diets). She worries about her big breasts
(with Orly Weinerman on her particularly repulsive opening show), about the
things Gil Riba wrote about her in his column in Yedioth Ahronoth, and the
party she once threw with Uri Stark.

And it is not only the interviewee that bothers her, it's also the camera.
Her awareness of it is tremendous. She has not yet weaned herself of her
habit back from the "Live Friday" period of stealing a look at the monitor
to she how she looks. She was insulted, she related to Yedioth for
Independence Day, when the television critics mentioned that she uses her
her sex appeal as way to succeed.

First of all, the celebrity habit of being insulted by the critics and
sharing this with the press is despicable, and secondly, you can't invite
Orly Weinerman to your show, talk to her about what you have in common, sit
with your legs crossed up on the sofa with a romantic glass of wine in your
hand, in a dim light, and then get insulted because someone talks about sex
appeal. Anyway - what's wrong with sex appeal.

3.

Ha'Aretz, May 22, 2000
Ambushed by the generals
Military correspondents are shut out of Lebanon, and this limits
information reaching the public
By Aviv Lavie

In addition to the shelling in Lebanon, the IDF also kept busy over the
weekend with a lively information campaign. Generals (Moshe Ya'alon, Giora
Eiland) gave numerous interviews to the media, others briefed the military
correspondents behind-the-scenes, and the IDF Spokesman released
photographs documenting the destruction of Ahmed Jibril's tanks by the
Israeli Air Force.The pictures, which were of excellent quality, as is
common in films of this type, were broadcast on both Channel One and
Channel Two. The only newspaper that chose to print them was Ma'ariv,
which, as is its wont, bolstered them with a headline that turned the war
in Lebanon into a Chuck Norris flick: "Phantom 2000: The tank cracker." But
aside from appreciation for the pilots' performance, there has been a good
deal of tension between the military correspondents and the IDF over the
press coverage of the events in Lebanon. And as the withdrawal moves into
its final stages, and Hezbollah's fire - by all estimates - increases, this
tension is likely to intensify.

For several weeks now, Lebanon has been almost hermetically sealed to the
media. Requests by reporters to cross the border into Lebanon, to visit the
outposts, interview soldiers and photograph the preparations for the
withdrawal have been repeatedly met with negative answers. Moreover, even
the outposts on the Purple Line, where lively activity is going on as part
of the redeployment, are out of bounds to reporters. It is difficult to
believe, but everything that the world - and that includes the Israeli
public - knows about what is going on in Lebanon is what the IDF spokesman
and the Hezbollah tell it.

Both sides are busy disseminating information and disinformation, and the
press has no way to verify the reports it receives. This week, for example,
the IDF was caught at what military correspondents suspect might be a
deception. After a long period during which correspondents asked for
information on the scope of the desertions from the Southern Lebanese Army
(SLA), the IDF announced that since the beginning of the year, only 17 SLA
soldiers have deserted. This figure would appear to indicate stability, in
light of the fact that last year 26 soldiers deserted from the SLA in all.
Except that at the end of last week, it turned out that the press agencies
reported that 24 soldiers had deserted from the SLA - since the beginning
of the month! And that is quite another story all together. So whom is one
to believe?

A key figure in the problematic relations between the IDF and the press on
the Lebanon issue is the GOC Northern Command Major General Gaby Ashkenazy.
The reporters consider Ashkenazy a hard nut to crack. Since the days when
Yitzhak Mordechai ran the Northern Command, they claim, no other commander
has played the IDF's cards as close to his chest as Ashkenazy,
demonstrating something akin to hostility toward the press. Ashkenazy has
been at his post for the past two years, and during that time he has
granted only one in-depth interview (to Ma'ariv). Nor does he easily allow
his officers to grant interviews either.

Ashkenazy explains his refusal to allow reporters into Lebanon with
"operational reasons," for example, out of concern for the reporters'
safety. The reporters, who in any case sign a form releasing the IDF from
any responsibility for their safety, maintain that Ashkenazy is not their
babysitter, and that reporters cover more dangerous areas all over the
world every day. Ten days ago, the staff of the radio program, "Mother's
Voice," on Army Radio received authorization to visit the command post at
Marjayoun and to broadcast soldiers' voices from there. Army Radio's
military correspondent, Gur Tsalal-Yahin used the opportunity to join the
radio delegation without first obtaining the necessary authorizations. The
IDF did not much like the ruse, but it prompts an obvious question: Why is
the "Mother's Voice" team allowed to do what military correspondents are not?

Perhaps because the army has not yet freed itself of its hidden ,and
totally undemocratic, ambition to control the information reaching the
Israeli public. And what is happening at present in Lebanon, and perhaps
even more so - what is going to happen during the final stages of the
withdrawal - may not look so good from an Israeli point of view. The
forecasts are talking about intense Hezbollah fire, perhaps involving many
Israeli casualties. The army seems to fear, perhaps unjustifiably so, that
an accusing finger will be pointed at it in such a case, and among the
political echelons, such pictures are likely to cause quite a bit of
unease. On the other hand, Israel has an interest in proving to the world
that it is fulfilling UN Resolution 524 down to the last comma.

To this complex fabric of interests should be added the tension between the
IDF top brass and the politicians. Quite a few senior IDF officers have
harsh criticism of the unilateral withdrawal without a negotiated
settlement to which Barak has committed himself. In recent weeks, they have
made sure to pass on clear messages to the press in the spirit of "we
warned of the dangers," "We were not told of the withdrawal" (as the chief
of staff himself said in an interview on Independence Day) and so on,
comments that convey the idea that if things really get messed up, we are
not the ones who will have to do the explaining.
Policy varies
Within the IDF too, the approach to the media is not uniform. The
correspondents have been getting the impression lately that they have more
of open door with the chief of staff and the IDF Spokesman than with the
GOC Northern Command. Last Monday, the military correspondents woke up to a
surprise. Overnight, the Taibeh outpost in Lebanon had been evacuated, and
they knew nothing about it. Some of them asked to go into Lebanon that same
day in order to cover the events first hand, but their requests were met
with refusal. A short time later, representatives of the military
correspondents informed Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz's office that they
planned to launch a fierce battle over this matter.

In the background, there is also the ongoing tension between the IDF
Spokesman, Oded Ben Ami, and AshkenazThe atmosphere was charged. At a
certain point, Ashkenazy leveled a serious accusation against "one
reporter," who broadcast an item stating that in his assessment, Reihan
would be the next outpost to be evacuated. From the moment the item was
broadcast, claimed the GOC Northern Command, the Hezbollah launched massive
shelling on the outpost in order to turn the planned IDF withdrawal into a
panicky retreat.

Ashkenazy was referring to Alon Ben David of Channel One, who broadcast
that piece of news on Tuesday evening. Some of the correspondents reacted
very harshly to these claims. They stated that the Hezbollah did not need
Ben David's assessments to know which outpost would be next in line. They
have maps in Lebanon too. Surprisingly, Ron Ben Yishai, military
correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, backed up the army's claim and gave
more than a hint of it in his Friday column in the paper. "The Hezbollah
took careful aim at the Reihan outpost after the Israeli media broadcast on
Tuesday evening that the IDF was planning to evacuate the outpost. The
Hezbollah took in the information and began to shell the outpost nonstop,"
he wrote.

There is no dearth of tension among the military correspondents themselves,
but the main dispute is still between the correspondents and the army. The
media want to photograph, write, report the news. The IDF often treats them
as if they are a nuisance. On Seder night, the first night of Passover, the
correspondents wanted to visit the outposts to report on the holiday meal
there. The IDF refused, partially basing its refusal on the chief military
rabbi. He refused to allow photographs to be taken in the outposts because
it would be a desecration of the holiday. This religious scrupulousness was
a little odd, considering the fact that the chief of staff and senior
officers came for the holiday meal in the outposts by helicopter after the
holiday had already begun, and during the meal itself, hopped from one
outpost to another.

During the meeting between the correspondents and the GOC Northern Command,
one of them asked Ashkenazy if the air force bombings at the week's end
also had to receive the authorization of Army Chief Rabbi Gad Navon.

The struggle over the way the withdrawal will be covered will continue. The
correspondents have accepted the fact that their movements in Lebanon will
be limited. They have prepared a paper with a number of suggestions. One is
that they be allowed to cover the withdrawal in "pools;" that each
correspondent be allowed access to a different sector, from which reports
would be sent for all the others. News broadcasts have not been unified
since the days of the Gulf War, and this possibility should concern all
those who value the freedom of press.

The IDF has responded favorably to some of the suggestions, but recent
experience has taught the media that agreements are one thing and
implementing them is quite another. They are waiting to see how the y.
Perhaps after the new spokesman, Ron Katri, takes over in about two weeks'
time, the atmosphere will change for the better.

The chief of staff promised that he would meet the correspondents halfway.
A few days after the communication with his office, on Friday morning,
Ashkenazy briefed the military correspondents.

Contribution.
If you think that IMW's work is important and helps maintain a democratic civil society in Israel and aids in providing a couter-balance to the pervasive and powerful influence of an unchecked media, you are invited to make a contribution. In Israel, our address is listed below.
For those in the United States, tax-exempt donations can be made out to "PEF" located at 317 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017.  Please add a note that your gift is a recommended grant for Israel's Media Watch.
Annual dues: Israel - 120 NIS;  Abroad - $50.
If you can suggest other names of interested persons and institutions, please feel free to do so.

Join & Support IMW's activities to assure fair, reliable and pluralistic broadcasting on Israel's public electronic media:
POB 6023 Jerusalem 91060 - Tel: 02-6236425  Fax: 02-6236426
E-mail: isrmedia@netvision.net.il
Web site: our new registered domain name: www.imw.org.il

Israel's Media Watch is a non-partisan civic advocacy group - IMW is a registered non-profit organization whose major aim is assuring the ethical and fair conduct of the Israeli media. 

Home Page - Most recent articles - Publications - Update reports
- Freedom of Speech - Biased News - GSS Agent Avishai Raviv & his IBA's collaborators
- Elections 1999 - Anti-Semitic / Anti-Religious trends in Israeli Media - Anti-Religious Cartoons
- Articles op-ed Reports - "On the Lookout" - IBA's Affairs - News Items

This page hosted by GeocitiesGet your own FreeHome Page