Some people in the Israeli media truly believe all is well, that there is nothing wrong there that needs rectifying, that our television channels, radio stations, and newspapers are impartial and balanced, and feature all the diverse opinions that characterize the Israeli public. This view is shared by those who sit behind anchor desks, hold microphones, and type at their keyboards; those who for decades have been the public's benchmark for right and wrong, good and evil, the allowed and the forbidden. They express genuine concern when they warn that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to take over the media. Make no mistake: This is not an attempt at some cheap manipulation; they really do speak from the heart. Truly, a situation in which politicians influence media programming and content is unhealthy and must be avoided. The only exception to the rule is when there is a great need for it, a wrong that simply must be righted. This, for example, was the driving force behind a decision made in the 1990s to license regional radio stations. At the time, the Israeli radio sphere comprised Israel Radio's four stations and Army Radio, effectively excluding the periphery. The politicians promoting regional radio stations recognized a need and took action. The same is true of the various reforms the Israel Broadcasting Authority has undergone in recent decades. Politicians have always been involved in public broadcasting, to the point where the role of the minister in charge of the IBA became a very coveted one. No one has ever protested that fact, nor was anyone decrying any so-called intervention. So if all is well and all is right, then any intervention, by any politician -- especially the prime minister -- can only mean one thing: a sinister attempt to change and control. Right? You cannot really fault those expressing these grave concerns. Their self-confidence is almost unassailable. They have never been on the other side, and they cannot imagine how so many Israelis felt in the mid-1990s, when they understood the government was pursuing a dangerous path of death and destruction, all while media headlines touted something resembling utopia. They cannot imagine what it was like to watch the media in its entirety back the destructive 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, and see it materialize. They even moved to take the right-wing Arutz Sheva (Channel 7) radio station off the air. After all, it was a fringe radio station that the Left and the media never bothered listening to, so they really couldn't have imagined what it was like. These are the people who truly believe Israeli media is balanced. Look, they say, there are many religious and right-wing journalists, and no one is trying to silence them. On the contrary, these journalists are gradually gaining bigger footholds and are appointed to senior positions, even when it comes to covering politics. This is a welcome trend, of course, but it is hard to ignore the fact that, despite these rays of light, the editorial agenda in all major media outlets remains the same: Peace talks will always garner jubilant headlines; reports on a diplomatic process will always underscore its positive aspects; leftist officials are forever "pragmatic," and right-wing officials are always "fascist." Fact, fiction, and folly Earlier this week, as the delay in the launch of the new public broadcasting body sparked a firestorm, Zionist Union MK Shelly Yachimovich was interviewed by Army Radio and protested what she called the prime minister's "takeover" of the media. Netanyahu, she said, does not want a right-wing media -- he wants the media to serve his interests. After all, she said, a quick look at the Israeli media map shows that Haaretz, the Left's newspaper, is offset by the Right's newspaper Makor Rishon ("First Source"). Yachimovich makes a valid point, which would probably resonate more loudly if not for the fact that while something reported by Haaretz is rehashed by other media outlets morning, noon, and night, Makor Rishon is consistently snubbed. This phenomenon, incidentally, bears no correlation to the two papers' exposure rate: The latest TGI survey, published on July 25, showed Makor Rishon's readership nearly equal to that of Haaretz. So why is the rightist publication marginalized by mainstream media, while Haaretz receives such prominence? The answer is simple: In many ways, Haaretz reflects the mainstream media's agenda and worldview while Makor Rishon is removed from them. The Israeli media is ill. Very ill. So ill, in fact, it is begging for an intervention. Although politicians are barred from intervening in the media unless public interest demands this, the dismal situation at hand is a clear case of such need. Netanyahu is out to control the media, they insist. They believe it, too, which only illustrates the gravity of the disease. With such catchy mantras, why bother with the facts? The 2015 election campaign illustrated exactly how much "control" Netanyahu has over the media, which banded together and spared no effort to see him removed from power. Every commentator, every pundit, believed Netanyahu would be unseated, and the media spared no effort to see its goal realized. The end justified the means, and removing Netanyahu from power justified the media becoming biased, virulent, and borderline violent. This is what hypocrisy looks like: dealing blow after blow to Netanyahu, while simultaneously lamenting the "oppressive" regime's efforts to muzzle the media. None of them shed a tear when Arutz Sheva was silenced for good. After all, they were the ones pushing for it. But when Channel 10 faced an uncertain future -- not because anyone was trying to silence it, but because it was mismanaged -- members of the media took to the streets in protest and dedicated precious airtime to the issue. Channel 10 employees were able to state their case on any platform, including on rival Channel 2, and the media rallied as one to save the struggling network. The same was true when a private legislative proposal sought to muzzle Israel Hayom. Its proponents did not even bother hiding their true intentions: It was not the fact that the paper was distributed free of charge that bothered them, it was its political agenda. That's right: Those behind the plot to shut this newspaper down hatched their plan because the opinions the paper expresses differed from their own. In their view, when Yedioth Ahronoth was essentially a monopoly pushing a uniform voice, that was the proper "world order." To them, this is how the media should be, and that order must be restored as soon as possible. It is inconceivable, they argue, for a paper that supports the prime minister to exist. Moreover, they cannot fathom a situation in which a large part of the public wants to read a newspaper that reflects its ideology and opinions -- the opinions of a democratic majority. After all, what does Netanyahu have to do with ideology? Shimon Peres has a clear ideology. Backed against the wall, they will concede that even controversial Habayit Hayehudi MK Bezalel Smotrich has a clear ideology. But Netanyahu? Please, don't be ridiculous. More than 985,000 people voted for Likud in the 2015 elections, but that is certainly no reason for them to ever be heard. They have a Likud-led government -- why would they need a newspaper or a television station? A newspaper is meant to criticize the government, not support it, the detractors say. But talk is cheap and these critics are in no rush to practice what they preach: When Ariel Sharon was in power in the early 2000s mainstream media was in no hurry to criticize the government. Channel 2 News commentator Amnon Abramovich even went as far as saying the potential criminal investigation Sharon was facing should be shelved, because he was "the only one who could carry out the disengagement," which Abramovich supported. No one rushed to denounce Abramovich and those who contradicted his opinion were silenced. Multiple personalities The most recent TGI survey found that Army Radio enjoys the widest radio audience. Netanyahu's critics argue that a look at the station's lineup reveals a polite host on the morning magazine, followed by a more aggressive host on the mid-morning show, followed by a host with very strong social awareness. That, they state, is pluralism at its best. If thousands of listeners cannot tell the difference between one show and the next and feel their opinions are being ignored, that's their problem. These listeners, you see, are simply wrong. Just as they were wrong when they voted for Netanyahu. With Netanyahu now battling advertorials and sponsored content, hypocrisy has reached new heights. Not only is he fighting this battle alone, without any support, he is again being portrayed as the enemy of the free media. His critics are not concerned by the fact that nowadays, one can simply buy a main headline on a leading news website. They are only concerned with currying favor with the website. At its core, the idea to replace the stale IBA with a new public broadcasting body is a good one, as sometimes, no matter how comprehensive a reform is, it simply falls short. This was the guiding principle for those promoting the move in the previous government, especially then-Communications Minister Gilad Erdan. But somewhere along the way, someone dropped the ball. The new corporation may be rich in content but as things stand, it will be poor in diversity, essentially offering nothing new. If anything, the public is clamoring for innovation. The tune accompanying the evening news' opening credits and the names of the featured programs are of little consequence. The important thing is who edits the main news edition, who the reporters on the ground are, and whether we keep hearing that diplomacy is key and stagnation is death and that the country is falling apart. Frenemies No one is questioning the fact that the cabinet meeting debating public broadcasting was a heated one, and that Likud ministers went a step too far. Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev came under fire for demanding the new outlet be subject to the government's control. That was an unfortunate remark, which she should have retracted. Those present at the meeting said Regev misspoke in the heat of the moment, but Social Equality Minister Gila Gamliel immediately recognized the potential harm the statement could cause, and warned Netanyahu to distance himself from it. In an Army Radio interview the next day Gamliel called Regev's statements "fascist." Later, her associates said it was a move meant to deflect criticism from the prime minister. Some in Likud, however, think the barbs traded between Regev and Gamliel have nothing to do with the public broadcasting corporation and everything to do with their aspirations to become the first lady of Likud. Party insiders say this is a fight of epic proportions -- so much so that Regev and Gamliel can barely stand to look at each other. Since the 2015 elections, Netanyahu has allowed Regev into his inner circle. She may not be a confidant, and Netanyahu does not consult with her on political issues, but his faith in her is slowly growing. Earlier this week, he handed her the entire budget of the Government Advertising Agency, 300 million shekels ($79 million). The Government Advertising Agency's deep pockets mean all media outlets, big and small, are eyeing a piece of its budget. Giving Regev control of the GAA's purse strings sends a very clear message. No guts, no glory Labor leader Isaac Herzog marked an important victory this week, when the Labor convention voted in favor of his motion to hold the party primaries in July 2017 as planned, and not move them to the end of this year. Given his victory, it is unclear why he was so wary to see the coalition negotiations through in May, or even why he did not try to push Labor's internal elections to a much later date. Moreover, given Herzog's impressive command of the convention, despite Labor members heckling him off stage when he was addressing the forum, it remains to be seen whether he pursues coalition talks again. His excessive hesitation during May's negotiations saw him squander his opportunity, but maybe this week's victory will give him the necessary confidence. Herzog may have been able to stave off Labor's internal elections for now, but eventually the primaries will be held, and he stands a better chance of winning another term as Labor leader if he runs as an incumbent foreign minister, rather than opposition leader. Party insiders said this week that should Herzog decide to join the coalition, he will have the backing of other prominent Labor MKs.
