The speech authority

1.

I opposed the establishment of a public broadcasting body from the outset. According to my worldview, the state does not need to provide television or radio to the masses, just as it does not provide us with books, newspapers or theater.

After the public broadcasting authority was established, I thought we might as well make the best of it -- and in the meantime, carry out the most important historic reform of Israeli media: Opening the market to anyone interested in creating a television channel or radio station for national broadcast. Channel 20 and Channel i24 to be broadcast nationally, along with separate licenses for Reshet and Keshet, former partners to Channel 2, to broadcast at all times and maybe even the establishment of a news channel in the style of America's Fox News -- this would create competition that would lead to the desired political balance.

In any case, only a Right that does not know how to govern would appoint managers like Eldad Koblenz and Gil Omer -- of all people in the country -- to the new public broadcasting authority to spark the long-awaited change to Israeli media. Now 1,000 wise men are trying to retrieve the stone that one of them threw down the well. You want change? Then govern. Appoint good, suitable people at key junctures, who will to proceed in the direction chosen by the public in the elections.

Still, were an alien to land in Israel this week, he would think that "broadcasting authority" was code for World War III, the battle of Gog and Magog in its autumn 2016 version, the destruction of the Third Holy Temple and all the other comparisons favored by media and political spokespeople who have dealt with the matter of the new public broadcasting body. One example is Zionist Union MK Eitan Cabel, who has already shut down one media outlet (Channel 7) and fought hard -- without success, thank God -- to shut down another media outlet (Israel Hayom); and now he is teaching us what democracy is.

When I see the alignment of (nearly) all media outlets and their satellites, and the immense pressure on journalists to think only in one way, along with the fixed phrase repeated ad nauseum -- "a blow to democracy" (which actually means a blow to their ability to manage us despite the fact that no one voted for them) -- I move to the other side. And when you distance yourself, you hear other voices. Up until now, we have mainly heard from members of the new broadcasting authority or its supporters. There is no demand to hear from the employees at the existing Israel Broadcasting Authority, which the new body is seeking to replace.

2.

I went to listen to the employees of the IBA. I did not agree with everything they said, but it was worthwhile to hear what they had to say, especially since they are left out of the public discussion. Some of the employees spoke of humiliation. "I grew up in Musrara [a neighborhood in Jerusalem that had many social and economic problems]," one of them said. "For more than 20 years, I have worked in many roles at the IBA. I grew from the bottom. Then I went to the new broadcasting authority and sat in front of three youngsters, who decided in the span of 20 minutes that I am redundant. What do they know? You see, I do not look like them."

Another worker said that he signed a contract with the new broadcaster but that it was still painful. He moaned: "For years, the IBA was ruled by the Ashkenazi elite. When staff began to change and the Mizrahim reached management and editing roles, leaving them in charge, the previous workers did not like it and the delegitimization of the system began.

"I say this from the point of view of someone who is financially sound, and someone who is not on the hard Right. I don't like Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]; I also don't hate him. So they got fig leaves. [Journalist] Kalman [Libeskind] and [journalist Shimon] Riklin [who has, for now, rejected the offer to join the new broadcaster] and the like -- people who they did not care about before. But now they are fighting, so they are signing on [right-wing] famous people to help them survive."

Another said: "The problem is that the Mizrahim at the new broadcasting authority have, for the most part, gone through the Army Radio machine. They all fit the same mold. Do you follow their broadcasts? Everything is organized and nice; they broadcast not even within the greater Tel Aviv framework, rather within the square between Florentin [Street] and Bugrashov [Street]. Their thinking -- also in conversations that I have had with them -- is that they are broadcasting to their crowd, not to Netivot or to Kiryat Shmona. My nephew [who lives] in the distant periphery, who has a bachelor's degree, does not relate to it. They do not speak in the language of the public."

"Who will remain at the IBA? Many workers who will be cast off at age 50 with nowhere to go. It's true that there were redundant jobs, but it changed during the reform, when they reached agreements on downsizing. It could have been done in a humane way. You know, this would not have happened in the time of [TV anchor] Haim Yavin [who represents the old establishment], they [the IBA] would not shut down. It was their fortress of strength."

Another man I spoke with added that "many employees in the news department are of Mizrahi background. In the past, there were people there who belonged to the old elite with [work] conditions that we could only dream of. As soon as the guard changed -- and those who were the hewers of wood and the drawers of water became the managers -- it was easier to shut it down. I'm not saying that this is the only reason, but it is easier to make decisions about the matter because it did not affect the elite.

"The group that was here for years was not made up of television geniuses. Even if you take a donkey and put it in this place for years, it will get to know the trade. So for years, they learned the trade at the public's expense, spent a lot of money and dug an enormous economic hole. They left us a legacy."

"And now that they are not here -- rather at other channels or in better places, from an economic standpoint -- most of them don't care."

I heard similar things from other people. It is hard to talk about this. Who wants to be stained with the mark of the underdog and to be blamed for returning public discourse to the years when ethnic background was a hot-button issue-

3.

I thought to myself that the process that took place at the IBA also occurred at other institutions; for example, the IDF. The moment the military reached a point of social mobility that led to the promotion of the representatives of "the second Israel" (Mizrahim, settlers and the religious), a process of delegitimizing the army was launched by those who, until recently, had led it. Delegitimization not only of the battle ethos, but also regarding military pensions; go check when the discussion on the issue began.

This does not mean that one may not criticize the military; it must be criticized. But I am talking about a drop in its status that is tied to its identification with social groups that were once on the margins.

Professor Menachem Mautner showed in his books a similar process in the justice system -- after the political upheaval in 1977, the true realm of decisions was transferred from the Knesset to the Supreme Court. This fortress will too be the object of delegitimization the moment that it is no longer identified with the old social elite.

I do not know how the public broadcasting saga will end, but in the argument between a young Army Radio journalist who signed a contract with the new public broadcasting body and an older IBA employee from Musrara -- I'm with the latter.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו