So Ha'Aretz Does Censor

Last Friday's Magazine supplement appeared with a blank box in the "Eppes" satirical column written by Yedidyah Meir and Yair Chasdiel. Both of them, incidentally, religious.

It seems that their humorous political comment on the death of Basam Zu'amet, an Israeli Arab who left Israel's media productions for the Palestinian theater stage, had a stikcer reading "A Good Arab is a Dead Arab".

Now you may think this a sick joke, and, in fact, the magazine's editor, Rogel Alpher, did indeed think that and that is why he removed it.

Nevertheless, two comments from me.

First, the satirical humor in HaAretz, Maariv and Yediot aganinst Jews in general and the right wing and Yesha Jews in particuklar, is much worse.

Second, HaAretz is a liberal paper. Why censor? Why limit freedom of expression at all?

Nu, go figure out the Israeli media.

Continuing Correspondence

Dear Yisrael,

Thank you for your gracious email. The desire is not for a middle of the road op-ed page but, rather, for a more flexible and diverse op-ed page.

The op-ed editors have been locked into so many regular slots that there is very little room to commission pieces that cover more diverse areas and respond to moving events. Huge areas of Jewish and Israeli life are rarely if ever covered, while we have piece after piece hammering away at other issues.

What's more, the paper has wound up running two or three op-ed pieces making essentially the same point within a few days of each other, where the main difference was the byline at the top. Rather than have the editors simply accepting that day's piece from the regular slot-filler, I'm trying to institute a process whereby we are gradually able to commission and initiate more, and more widely. The Post's op-ed columns remain open to you.

Indeed, I know you have a piece going in any day now, and I hope you'll keep pitching ideas.

David Horovitz Editor-in-Chief, The Jerusalem Post

Dear David,

Thanks for taking the time to reply and express your ideas.

I have been sitting here (while the chicken soup, which I do, bubbles) trying to decide what
and how to respond. If I am not mistaken, excluding Fridays, the JPost has three op-ed pieces
a day (15 a week not including Fridays) and at least on one other day, another 3 at least. In two weeks,
that's a minimum of 36 op-eds. One of which, is a review and commentary on Israel's media -
not that of the foreign press abroad.

I can't think of anyone, until The Publishers appeared (and since it was anonymous and in the
Friday magazine, I am making an educated guess that it was initiated by the JPost) who publishes
on the subjects Eli and I deal with. And again, diversity could be achieved by inviting another
media comment. The JPost found Pfeffer; it could locate someone else.

Moreover, with all humility, I don't know of anyone else who deals with the issues of Israel's
media the way we do (usually linking up with academic media criticism studies and cases)
and with our insight (Eli was a member of IBA's governing council and chairman of its
Galatz Committee and I, for 5 years IMW's director, have a very close and personal friendship
situation with many of the media people due to my previous work in the political scene - 12 years
in the Knesset).

I am truly grateful that the op-ed page will be open to me on occasion and, actually, one of
my complaints a year ago, when we were informed that we were being transferred to the
opinion page from the news page, was that it could interfere and would force me to cut back
on submissions (not that I was writing regularly as some other people merited) in that if I was
writing on the media, and we did/do maintain a very objective and non-political view in the
articles on the media, I could then find myself in a contradiction. I know that you seem
to be fairly set in your decision. But I also have a feeling that if it turns out that perhaps,
at least on the media comment theme, there is room for reconsideration, that you will
indeed have another 'think' and hopefully, we may be back, in this or that form.

Olmert, Not Barel

The Jerusalem Post's editorial in its Friday weekend edition of October 15 dealt with the Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA).

While terming the anticipated decision of Deputy Premier Ehud Olmert to fire Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Director-General Yosef Barel, "long overdue", Olmert's other actions (he is the minister responsible for overseeing all state-supported media) or, rather, his lack of action, is overlooked.

Olmert has studiously avoided appointing a new governing council, as the law requires, for some nine months.
This has severely hampered the ability of Barel, as well as the former Chairman of the IBA, Avraham Natan, who recently resigned due to the intolerable management situation with which Olmert refuses to deal. Even the Movement for Quality Government has petitioned the High Court of Justice to force Olmert to make those appointments.

Although I am not party to the enthusiasm the JPost display in pursuing the end to Barel's term of directorship, Olmert himself should also have been a target of the paper's criticism.

Further in the editorial, the editorial claims that "Israel's Arabic language broadcasts have deteriorated in recent years". But it was Barel who revolutionized just that aspect in airing a 24-hour cable Arab language broadcast (except for short English break-ins). Does not the JPost know of this?

The only aspect I can unhesitingly agree with is the need to bolster Israel's English language broadcasts. But this is the field of Olmert, not Barel. For years the IBA has been requesting budget resources. It was the responsibility of the ministers over the years to demand that the IBA devote more of its cababilities as an information outlet of the state in the English language.

The IBA is sick. The cure can only come from the likes of Olmert, not Barel.

A "Dear David" Letter

David Horovitz
Editor, The Jerusalem Post

As you can expect, I was disappointed to hear from Eli Pollak today that our column of media
comment has been terminated. Saul's announcement intimated a desire on your part for a more
"middle-of-the-road" op-ed page.

I'm bewildered. If the column was too extreme, one would think that another opinion writer would
be asked to counter. Why eliminate an element of pluralism? Why go 'minus'?

Actually, for the first year of the column, when we were published weekly, at the invitation of
the previous editor, we were news commentary/analysis and, quite successfully, I might add,
we did not express opinions. When informed that we were to be moved off page 3 in the news
section to the op-ed, we protested. We did not want to be opinion. But, we were forced,
one claim being that more news space was needed. Between you and me, both Saul and Calev
just didn't like what we were doing, but that is just an educated guess.

And then, about a half year ago or so, an anonymous media commentator appeared in the
weekend magazine, "The Publishers", I think it was and a few months later, Anshel Pfeffer made
his appearance. So, we thought, the JPost had achieved balance. As it turns out, we were wrong.

I understand that the decision is final.

Starting Anew

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

A 'Rather-less' Media

(Note:
For more than two years, Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak of Israel's Media Watch, published a column in the Jerusalem Post on Israel's print and electronic media. First weekly, it appeared as commentary and analysis on page three of the news section. During its second year, we were published but once every two weeks and it appeared as an op-ed article in B section.

On October 12, 2004, we were informed by Sol Singer that David Horovitz, the paper's new editor, had decided to axe the column, saying that the paper wanted a more "middle" political line.

Below is our last article to appear as it was originally written and submitted before it was edited in a fashion that, in my opinion, was unprofessional and lacking in the finesse needed.

I hope to use this blog to maintain a free and unfettered voice on Israel's media.

Yisrael Medad)

=======================================================

A ‘Rather-less-biased’ Media
Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak

The hottest American media item is the CBS television network’s 60 Minutes program pie-in-the-face. It recently aired a story on George W. Bush's National Guard service claiming he had received preferential treatment but it turned out that the tale was based on forged documents or, as CBS asserted in its eventual apology, letters that they could not authenticate.

Dan Rather, at 71, the show’s host, is one of America’s outstanding TV news personalities. Even though he also somewhat apologized the affair is nevertheless being termed DanScam and Rathergate.Rather has been around for a long time.

In 1963 he was the first to broadcast John F. Kennedy’s death by assassination. Later, after verbal altercations with President Richard M. Nixon, Nixon once quipped, "I am sure Mr. Rather thinks the best kind of press conference is one with him alone."

The official line from CBS was that the network had every reason to believe that the story was legitimate, although the truth is that CBS had spoken to experts who doubted the documents' authenticity before the broadcast. Rival FOX cable network head, Rupert Murdoch, reacted, saying Fox would have been crucified for CBS mistake. And then he went one step further, commenting that, "the traditional media in this country is in tune with the elite, not the people."

Another media critic wrote: “the story of the fake documents aired is deeper than just one man's fall...it is the story of technology's transition”. He was referring to the new powerful alternative media outlets: the bloggers who populate the Internet-based news sites. CBS icon Dan Rather was brought down and shown to be non-ethical, if not borderline criminal, by independents, usually working in their dens late at night in their pajamas.

This is not just a riveting American story. It has ramifications extending beyond the ongoing political-cultural debate in that country between liberals and conservatives.

Indeed, Israel’s media consumers can learn a lot from it even though the media itself, we fear, may not.

Lesson #1: yes, there is a media elite, and it usually is liberal and progressive.

In responding to one of Israel Media Watch’s (IMW) first complaints, then IBA head Motti Kirschenbaum reacted to our activities in a radio interview and said that it is only natural that most media people are liberal. After all, he explained, liberals are inquisitive and suspicious, qualities that make for good media. This seemed to open the floodgates of self-confessions for in the following years many senior media stars admitted that there politics were no where near the right, and in some cases, like Shelly Yechimovitz and Aviv Lavie, were Communist for they had voted Hadash.

Many have no better suggestion but to point out that the main stream media needs to hire journalists of opposite ideological persuasions. The option of simply distinguishing between news and views appears to be foreign to their mind.

Lesson #2: while many media people are unintentionally sloppy and non-professional, there are really a few unscrupables who are not above cheating and knowingly fooling their clients, the people who want and need the news.

Recently, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronot columnist, published a story that Othniel Schneller, the original candidate of Ariel Sharon to head the Disengagement Bureau, had had his car vandalized in his home community of Michmash, across the Green Line. The story, however, was simply not true as Schneller admitted to us. Apprised of this fact, nevertheless, Barnea has not seen fit to correct himself.

Back in 1995, Eitan Oren of IBA’s Channel One TV, broadcast a 10-minute “swearing-in” ceremony of the Eyal group led by Avishai Raviv. Despite its obvious stage appearance, Oren never made amends and attempts to get the law to intervene failed.

Lesson #3: there is a desperate need for a pluralistic media atmosphere.

The closing down of Arutz 7, for example, sentencing their owners and operators to jail terms while dozens of other non-licensed stations continue to broadcast with no similar judicial measures taken against them smacks of a political and ideological animosity percolating in the denizens of the State Prosecutor’s office as well as the State Attorney’s bureau. The law controlling the licensing of broadcast networks desperately needs a modernization.

Lesson #4: watchdog groups, advocating unbiased media who monitor the broadcast waves, are a crucial component of Israel’s democracy.

The media belongs to its consumers and all the more so public broadcasting that dominates Israel’s radio and television programming. The people need a defense group that will protect their rights to a balanced, responsible, non-partisan, fair, professional and ethical media. Media governing bodies, including the Press Council, must have representatives of the public appointed to them, persons who can assure the pluralistic nature of Israel’s society.

That’s what democracy is all about.

In America, the demand is being voiced to de-Ratherize the media there. In Israel, let’s start with a Rather-less media here.

------------------------------------------------------
The writers are vice-chairman and chairman, respectively, of Israel’s Media Watch (www.imw.org.il),
the latter a professor at the Weizmann Institute.