1. "What's wrong with asking for fair play-" Rina Matzliah, host of Channel 2's free "Meet the Press" program asked innocently last Saturday. What she meant was that when one newspaper is free and another isn't, it's not fair. First of all, we'll tackle the main point: Who said that people should be required to pay for print journalism, while radio, television, and Internet are provided for free? Second, if it's "fair play," then fair play all the way: Why is Rina Matzliah the only one who hosts "Meet the Press"? Isn't it possible to pair her with a host who has conservative, right-wing views? "Fair play," right? Why do most of the hosts of Army Radio's current events shows take leftist stances? And Israel Radio? Why isn't Matzliah discussing the issue? As for payment, if after all the years that people have been watching it for free Channel 2 were to ask viewers to pay, possibly special charges for each program, how many would be willing to pay to watch Matzliah's show? Why does Channel 10, which is unable to find an investor, continue to compete with Channel 2 on the Left? If it were to become a right-wing, conservative channel, an Israeli version of the U.S.'s Fox Network, maybe we'd get "fair play" in the electronic media for the first time. But we understand that the opposition to Israel Hayom has to do with its political and cultural agenda, which is different from that of most of the Israeli media. What the authors of the Bill for the Promotion and Protection of Printed Media in Israel want is for the government to be involved in the content of certain newspapers, a state that oversees media outlets. Interesting -- what does this bring to mind? 2. Israel Hayom has the privilege of breaking Yedioth Ahronoth's monopoly. Think back to the days when the newspaper that once had an entire country controlled the Israeli media without competition. It marketed the blood-soaked Oslo Accords as a doomsday vision; it crowned the disengagement from Gaza as the deal of the century and shushed reasonable opposition to it, while innocent farmers who had made the wilderness bloom were portrayed as "extremists" and an obstacle to peace. Yedioth Ahronoth has taught the public to loathe the settlement movement and religious Zionism, the right wing, and members of the Likud. Its cultural heroes have almost always been leftists, preferably those with hate-filled texts toward their political rivals. At one of the hate demonstrations at the end of the 1980s, writer Amos Oz let out a stream of invective and incitement against Gush Emunim and the settlements. Yedioth spread that abomination across an entire page, without any rebuttal. And this is only one of hundreds of examples. This didn't happen because of Israel Hayom, as Rina Matzliah hinted; it was the reality long before we were here. It could be said that Israel Hayom was born because of this unacceptable state of affairs, to which the bill's authors want to return us. Who said that the tradition of the Mapai party has disappeared? 3. Then came Matti Golan, the former editor of Haaretz, who today, in an outburst of liberalism typical of people like him, supports the anti-Israel Hayom bill. Here is his logic: "If they won't buy [Israel Hayom], it looks like it shouldn't be around." This is the only standard? Fine, let's try that with the Internet and radio and TV. Will people pay for Yedioth's news website, for the Channel 2 website, or the site of its paper Globes? And if they won't, does it "look like they shouldn't be around"? In an outburst of righteousness, Golan spewed against "the corrupt norms Israel Hayom presents." I listened carefully to hear what he meant: "They talk about freedom of expression. But anyone who supports the bill gets vilified in the paper." How strange is it to fight against a law designed to hurt you? And what "vilification" -- pointing out to politicians what they said in the past, and what they're doing today? That's really not acceptable, Matti Golan. This is what you and your friends have taught us for years -- to listen only to you, and to you again, and you again for dessert, unless you brought on a crazy right-winger to reinforce your demonic image of us. These, not anything else, are the corrupt norms of the old guard that you were part of creating and preserving. Corruption is not allowing voices from outside the leftist herd to speak out; corruption is shoving into a dark corner the majority of the public, which thinks differently from the gang that is so full of itself it has no room for anything else; corruption is leading historic diplomatic moves without holding public debate worthy of the name, along with contemptible attacks and endless defamation against anyone who thinks differently from the acclaimed Oslo bunch. 4. Yes indeed, fighting against those who want to shut us down is a moral obligation, our obligation to a huge public who, until Israel Hayom came into being, didn't have a platform for its voice. Even today, there are still Matti Golans and Rina Matzliahs and Barneas and Abramovitches and Neubachs and Drukers and plenty more ad nauseam. And they all say and think the same thing, even when the reality is the opposite. Enough. We're sick of it. Mr. Golan, you have gotten so used to the astonishing situation in which the Left controls information channels and shapes public opinion that you're unable to realize that the reality has changed. The print journalism revolution Israel Hayom is leading is the opening act for a long-awaited upheaval in electronic media -- radio, television, and the Internet. We're longing for such a revolution in other areas, as well: the establishment of a Zionist fund with deep pockets that will compete with the Jewish Destruction Fund known as the New Israel Fund; the establishment of large research institutes that will compete with leftist institutes such as the Israel Institute for Democracy as it Sees Fit; publishing houses; and Israeli universities hiring pro-Zionist and pro-Israeli lecturers at humanities and social sciences faculties. We're being patient. To sum up, economist Prof. Manuel Trajtenberg is not my cup of tea, especially after his disgraceful announcement that he opposed the University of Ariel. But yesterday in a Globes interview he spoke logically, straight into the ears of those who would shut other people up by playing dumb: "Monopolistic forces in the market are still very strong. Until one market after another breaks them, in a guerrilla war, we won't see change." Exactly. That's just what we've done.
