Over the past three years, the level of trust Israeli citizens have had in the media has remained constant, while the amount of trust they have had in other institutions has decreased. And yet, Israelis also see the media as a source of stress and conflict surrounding the pending evacuation from the Gaza Strip and part of northern Shomron. This and other information from The Media and Israeli Democracy was presented on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI). Senior fellow, Professor Asher Arian who actively developed the Auditing Israeli Democracy project, began the symposium by presenting statistical information on how different sectors of Israeli society view the media in light of the pending disengagement plan.
During the event, different aspects of the media were discussed. Among the speakers was Professor Gadi Wolfsfeld from the Hebrew University, who spoke on how the media over-exposes the settlers in their search for sensationalism. The suffering of the settlers is easy to catch on film, he explained, people crying in their homes that will soon be destroyed is much easier to film than the government's travesty, and it seems more credible than the extremists who have already been filmed numerous times and have not executed any of their threats. He said that the bottom line is that the media has an economic self interest: violence, drama and even blood bring ratings. Professor Wolfsfeld also gave examples from the 1982 evacuation of Yamit in Sinai.
After the break, the discussion became heated. Editors, publishers and journalists from leading newspapers and channels questioned if it is legitimate for a newspaper to have an agenda, and where must a line be drawn between having an opinion and having that opinion influence reporters to ignore important stories, referring to the fact that many leading journalists have not criticized Ariel Sharon because of their support of the disengagement plan. An example that was repeatedly mentioned was a pro-evacuation docudrama series currently being shown on prime time. The series is produced by Channel One's leading reporter, Haim Yavin, for Channel Two. A reporter for Maariv, Nadav Haetzni, stated that all series of the sort have been clearly one-sided. Reporter Ilana Dayan adamantly said that by going the extra mile and searching for drama, reporters act as a democratic expression instead of giving power to politicians and politics; however, the media should not merely cater to the reader's mood, but go the extra mile and deal with important issues nonetheless. She made the distinction between a reporter who has an opinion and writes about it and a reporter who ignores key information and does not dig out a story because of that opinion.
Channel One's Yaakov Ahimeir spoke of the importance of precision, regardless of a personal agenda. He said that in the media's overzealous attempt to support the disengagement plan, matters are being overlooked. He brought the example of a letter from US President Bush to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2005. Ariel Sharon and the media have given the impression to all Israeli citizens that the US has promised to support Israel in not allowing Palestinian refugees to enter Israel and has promised, in light of Israel's good faith decision of the evacuation, to allow Israel to keep large settlements (alluding to Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel). The letter in fact mentions these topics, but not as promises. Such language is used that can make these issues perhaps a preference, but certainly not a promise. Mr. Ahimeir also stated that the letter, available on the White House's website is accessible to reporters who, instead of taking the minimum time to easily look it up, ignore the details and in fact give a wrong impression to the vast public.
Many people had questions and raised issues following the speakers’ insights. One such question was if terrorism can exist without the media (referring to Professor Daniel Dayan's views on terrorists and terrorism). Another interesting point brought up was by IDI's Professor Kremnitzer who brought up the issue of corruption. He said that part of the problem with the media in Israel stems from the fact that as long as the media ignores issues of corruption within the government and focuses only on opinions and issues, the media is conveying that the integrity of politicians can be compromised, and is in second place. If the media were to stress the importance of integrity, the situation might then change.
Click here to download The Media and Israeli Democracy.