Freedom of Expression and
Freedom of the Press in Israel
(Updated April 2005)
Since its inception
in the latter decades of the nineteenth century,
the culture of journalism in Israel has heeded the
basic tenets of a democratic press, namely, to provide
as much accuracy as possible in reporting the news,
a broad range of viewpoints and independent postures
regarding political and public institutions.
The initial forms
of media in Israel followed the European model of
the role of the press. The European culture of partisanship
affected the way the Israeli press was run, and early
Israeli newspapers had clear affiliations and identifications
with political parties that determined their agenda.
In the early years
of the state, despite working for papers with obvious
tendentious perspectives, Israeli journalists attempted
to maintain accuracy in reporting and strove to cover
most of the important news items of the day. However,
each newspaper acted as a conduit for the dissemination
of a particular political philosophy and news items
were colored with each paper's unique ideology. Although
the papers were perceived as ideological tools, they
manifested the evolvement of democracy prior to the
formation of the state, by holding heated debates
within each paper and among all the papers about
the proposed character of the emerging country.
Two alternatives existed
to this partisan press. One was the widely circulated
commercial newspaper represented mainly by two national
daily papers which exist to this day: "Yediot
Ahronot" and "Maariv". The second
was the anti-establishment paper, "Ha'olam Hazeh",
edited by Uri Avneri. This paper had a dramatic affect
on the role of the press in Israel in that Avneri
encouraged critical review of the government, a practice
that was not commonly utilized by other papers at
the time.
For many years, almost
all of the newspapers, with the exception of "Ha'olam
Hazeh", shared a certain attitude, at times
bordering on the extreme, characterized by the avoidance
of any criticism of the government, in the name of
what was called "the national interest".
This approach reached new heights prior to the outbreak
of the Yom
Kippur War in 1973, when the press heeded
the military's demand not to warn their readers of
the impending war. After the disastrous outcome of
the war, many in the press berated themselves for
being remiss in their duties and changed their attitude
about their responsibility as journalists.
The 1980's were witness
to an important change for the better in the role
of the press in Israeli democracy. The partisan press
began to change their appearance and significantly
reduced their editorializing in an attempt to attract
a broader audience. Accordingly, the readership of "Ha'olam
Hazeh" began to wane after other national papers
started to take a more aggressive and challenging
stand towards the government. The emergence of free
television and radio also had a great effect on the
manner in which newspapers operated. This process
of change culminated in 1982, during the Lebanon
War, when the press felt free to criticize the government
while reporting continuous and critical information
about the war to the public.
An increase in circulation
of the number of local newspapers, as well as the
addition of a new and innovative magazine style in
the press added to the growing media discourse during
the 1980's. The introduction of the magazine "Monitin" helped
pave the way for other types of media to adopt this
type of journalism and was the model for the magazine
format that became popular on television and radio.
The magazine format allowed
newspapers to cover a wide range of topics (other than
strict news items), such as human interest stories
that held greater appeal to the broader Israeli public.
The partisan papers
began to close down at the end of the 1980's as a
result of economic and other reasons. Only three
national daily newspapers survived this period: "Haaretz",
a paper that appealed to the intellectual public; "Maariv" and "Yediot
Ahronot", with more sensational and pictorial
reporting, competed with each other for the same
readership base. These three papers are owned by
a few families, who, as a result, wield enormous
power with the ability to influence the national
and media agenda.
Fears that these families
would use their power to dominate the media and set
their own agenda, have largely proved unfounded due
to the commitment by the press, as well as the electronic
media, to providing full and fair coverage of news
in Israel and the world. In fact, almost all incidents
involving exposure of corrupt public officials have
been uncovered by members of the press. Moreover,
the natural competition between the papers for readership
helps to keep the papers from falling prey to the
whims of their owners.
Nonetheless, this
author has difficulty with the fact that there are
only three national newspapers. Obviously this creates
a situation where not as many voices, and as wide
a range of opinions, perspectives and even information
as desirable, can ideally reach the public. The reasons
for the lack of more national newspapers are mainly
economic and it is hard to imagine how another daily
newspaper could survive in today's commercial environment
in Israel.
Israeli members of
the press accept and abide by the western approach
to journalism and innately act according to a code
of ethics that includes critical analysis and reliable
information as its creed. For the most part, the
members of the Israeli press are educated and knowledgeable.
Very few instances have been uncovered where these
principles have been compromised or where facts have
been distorted intentionally by a delinquent journalist
or reporter.
Israel is also a very
political society. Every political decision and process
can and often does directly impact on the lives of
the Israeli populace. The model of "tabloid
journalism" which is popular in many other countries,
is therefore not as readily tolerated in Israel,
whose population reads its papers avidly to obtain
accurate facts and news.
Consequently, the
daily newspapers and other forms of Israeli media
deal with fundamental issues of the day, monitor
the government and provide comprehensive political
information to their readers and audience.
Israelis are known
for their appreciation of lively discourse and the
press obliges by filling its role as a forum for
polemics and debate. One of the more popular television
programs in Israel is the roundtable discussion,
featuring various public and private individuals
vigorously expressing a spectrum of viewpoints on
many issues.
The dissemination
of reliable information, respect for a variety of
opinions, and encouragement of active criticism of
the government, are indicative of the conduct of
the press in Israel's democratic society.
Recently, as in the
rest of the world, a new player has entered the field,
in the form of the Internet. The activity in this
field is wide ranging and extensive, and enables
many entities and private individuals to join in
the public discourse. Israel is home to thousands
of portals and sites, and all of the newspapers have
online versions, containing lively discussions, some
of which deal with political and public issues. The
chat and talkback format provides a forum for thousands
of people who, until the Internet, were unable to
express themselves publicly. Overall, Israelis, who
never shy away from debate, are taking good advantage
of the Internet.
Israel is still a
young, developing democracy. Although some members
of the public question the motives of the press in
criticizing the state during wartime, in general,
Israeli society comprehends that a free, robust press
is crucial to the existence of a strong democracy
and a value worth fighting for. Instilling recognition
of the dangers of trying to place restrictions on
the press, and an understanding by the public of
the role played by the Israeli media even under trying
conditions, are part of Israel's challenge in meeting
its vision to become a true democratic nation.
Sources: Ruvik Rosenthal, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs |