Democracy is “under attack,” opposition leader MK Yair Lapid said at the start of an “emergency” conference his party hosted in the Knesset on Wednesday on government attempts to intervene in the media market.
Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party convened the conference, called the Media Freedom Conference, in the wake of a number of moves by the government that could negatively affect the freedom of the press in Israel. These include bill proposals to privatize and commercialize the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, known as KAN; a government decision to cut all advertising ties to Haaretz; an attempt to alter the television rating measurement system; and more.
According to Lapid, “Democracy must protect itself. The two basic qualities of a democracy – the qualities that differentiate it from every other type of regime – are its ability to critique itself and improve itself. Both are impossible without a free press. Both are under attack.“This government doesn’t want balance, it wants media like in Hungary, like in Russia – restrained, frightened, submissive, shallow,” Lapid said.
“This is a planned, orchestrated attack that comes from the top. Time after time, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu speaks from the Knesset podium to rail against the media. In what country – in what type of country – does the prime minister speak in parliament against the basic idea of a free press? In what sort of country is criticism of the government – the most basic role of the media – labeled as treachery?” Lapid said.
Lapid pointed out that he had removed all symbols of the opposition from the conference’s symbols so as to make media outlets associated with the Right more comfortable to come. However, these outlets, such as Channel 14, did not attend.
Journalists criticize Kan privatization
Yediot Ahronot's reporter, Merav Betito said that once the government began singling out reporters, it was a matter of time until it would start doing the same for regular citizens.TheMarker’s Sami Peretz said the government wasn’t just acting against freedom of press but was refusing to accept any criticism whatsoever, pointing out that the government had yet to form a national commission of inquiry to investigate the October 7 Hamas massacre.David Verthaim, of 103FM and Walla, addressed Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s (Likud) arguments in favor of the privatization of KAN. Karhi has said that the move to privatize KAN was aimed at increasing competition in the media market.Verthaim countered that rather than create competition, the move would increase positive coverage of the government, since media tycoons with ties to the government could now purchase and take over KAN’s television and radio channels.
Karhi has also argued that the move would save money for the state, as it would free up hundreds of millions of shekels for other purposes. Verthaim countered that rather than going to other public purposes, this money would enrich media tycoons.Merav Sever, an investigative journalist for Israel Hayom, described how the investigations she carried out regarding sex offenders and other crimes in haredi (ultra-Orthodox) society would not have been possible in an environment of fear. For this reason, she could not carry out the same investigations and publish them in the haredi newspapers themselves, Sever said.Karhi joined the meeting approximately 15 minutes before it ended. He justified the privatization of KAN first by differentiating between KAN’s news division and the rest of its divisions.The latter, including divisions that create original content such as documentaries and other projects, would not be affected by the changes, Karhi said; on the contrary, they would receive more financial support from the government as a result of the freeing up of funds from the privatization of the news division.Karhi added that the privatization of KAN would improve competition since it would eliminate government involvement.Karhi was repeatedly disrupted by representatives of media outlets at the committee. Lapid urged them to let Karhi speak freely so as not to “grant” him the pleasure of arguing that in a conference on freedom of speech, he was not given permission to speak.