printMy guest this week on Barely a Blog is Daniel Doron. Daniel, the director of the premier Israeli free-market think tank, The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress, is also a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, where this especially probative piece first appeared.–ILANA
The Media Monopoly—Again
By Daniel Doron
A few days prior to the elections, two top Israeli journalists—known for their rare combination of intelligence, courage and integrity—threw a veritable bomb-shell into the otherwise soporific electoral debate.
To preserve the large lead that Ariel Sharon gained for his newly formed Kadima, under the leadership of the less popular Ehud Olmert, party strategists decided to keep the election campaign on a low key. Though Israel faces some life and death choices that voters should understand and sort out, Kadima strategists refused to have Olmert debate his two chief rivals, Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Labor’s Amir Peretz. They also managed to have a very supportive media keep any serious issue out of the public’s eye.
This is why the extraordinary critical two articles, one by Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz senior columnist, and the other by Guy Rolnik, Ha’aretz and the Marker economic editor, people from the left, mind you, would have created a media fire storm in any normal country. Shavit and Rolnik asserted that Netanyahu, whom the media marked as enemy of the poor and a peon of the rich, was actually the man who saved the Israeli economy from collapse and protected the poor; that he was the one who broke the major power of the rich, the bank monopoly; and that conversely, Kadima and its leader, the darlings of the media, may actually endanger Israel’s security, and corrupt its democratic system and its economy.
In “The Country Is In Our Hands,” an imaginary secret memo submitted to the 18 families that control most assets in Israel by their chief strategists, Shavit wrote:
“It was impossible to buy Netanyahu… when he dared threaten the banks, we suddenly understood that the man is not ours… therefore we made a determined strategic decision: Bibi has outlived his usefulness, Bibi must go….”
“To face the danger (emanating from Netanyahu’s reforms)… we had to form a political body that will serve us (the oligarchy) faithfully, and we had to head it by one of our own…”
“E.O. is A1… his door is always open… there is not a deal that he won’t cut… we have gained access that is comparable only to what the rich have in Latin America…”
“The new ruling party will be a most useful instrument for gaining our objectives… it will enable us to have total control of the Israeli government, of the police, the state prosecutor’s office, the treasury (and the various regulatory bodies)… Our 20th century dysfunctional democracy will be replaced by a centralized oligarchy…”
Rolnik made equally dramatic charges. In his piece “Kadima (onwards)—For The Benefit Of Our Rich Friends,” he wrote:
“Netanyahu was made to look as the elite’s man…. Political, social, and economic commentators tell us that he made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Nice story, but little relation to reality… the rich hate Bibi, they are connected to Olmert and prefer even Peretz… (Netanyahu) was the worse Minister of Finance the rich families controlling the economy ever got.”
“Netanyahu totally backed the removal of the banks from their chief source of power—their control of financial markets…”
“(Netanyahu’s) cuts (in government handouts) have saved the economy from collapse, (they have generated the brisk growth) that makes it possible for all the politicians to make promises for more handouts…”
“We know Ehud Olmert… he can be relied upon, Nochi (Dankner) relies on him, Mossie (Wertheimer) relies on him, Eitan (Raff) relies on him, they (the oligarchs) all rely on him—he will not disappoint them…”
In addition, Shavit, a fervent supporter of total withdrawal from the disputed territories, also charged that Olmert’s promise to make unilateral withdrawals without securing international backing for the total demilitarization of these territories is so irresponsible and dangerous—because it will enable Hamas to establish on the doorstep of Israel a Jihadi regime supported by Iran and Syria—that he was unfit to be Prime Minister.
Both Shavit and Rolnik are politically close to Kadima’s policy of total withdrawal from the disputed territories. However, unlike most of the media their integrity prevented them from joining the virulently anti-Netahyahu campaign which the pro unconditional withdrawal media exploited to advance its agenda; it has also prevented them from participating in the systematic cover up of Kadima’s and Labor’s shortcomings.
But it did not matter, because they were a drop in a sea of media manipulations and distortions.
The media did not even report or comment on their unusual criticism so most people were not aware of its existence.
Israel has three major TV channels, several radio stations, plus a number of very competitive newspapers. Yet the very liberal (in its own eyes) Israeli media has a united political voice and a single agenda, the promotion of a Palestinian state no matter how jingoistic, oppressive or dictatorial it is. It makes sure that no other voice is heard, and if heard, that it is discredited.
People in the media are entitled, of course, to their opinions. But it is questionable whether Israeli democracy can thrive when the media manages “to inject itself as an actor in this campaign in a manner unprecedented in Israeli electoral history” (as Yaron Dekel, senior commentator of Israel’s “public” TV channel 1, put it) and does it not only by manipulating the news but by outright lies and fabrications. In fact, it is quite likely that the media’s success in squelching a vigorous public debate on the urgent issues facing Israel is the reason for the worrisome and extremely low voter participation.