Magazine

Media freedom in Israel eroding fast

The Israeli Parliament – the Knesset – on November 22 voted 42-31 in favour of an amendment to the Anti-Libel law, or the ‘Silencing Law’ as it is dubbed by the Israeli media.

The bill proposes to increase six-fold, from ILS 50,000 (EUR 10,000) to ILS 300,000 (EUR 50,000), the amount of damages individuals will be able to claim from media organisations in libel cases, if they feel they have been harmed with false accusations.

The revised text also stipulates that the burden of proof will not lie on the plaintiff, but on the media.

In addition, media outlets may be assigned to pay up to ILS 1.5 million (EUR 500,000) in compensation if they fail to publish in full a plaintiff´s reaction to a critical publication.

If passed, the law will be equally applicable to bloggers and individuals posting messages on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter.

Democracy demonstration in Tel Aviv, January 2011, photo credit: Ran Yaniv Hartstein via Flickr (some rights reserved)

The bill is seen as part of a strong legislative trend in the current Knesset targeting the judicial system, civil rights organisations and ethnic minorities and reflects a clear shift of the Israeli political spectrum towards the right.

Detractors say that this development represents a threat to democracy, because the new laws attack and undermine the country’s democratic institutions and principles, such as pluralism and liberalism.

Challenge to media freedom

Presently, it is the media’s turn to come under the Knesset’s scrutiniy, in what appears to be a challenge to media freedom in Israel.

The Knesset´s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee released a bill last summer that would abolish the automatic right for the media to reveal the name of a suspect in the first 48 hours of investigation. The current law entitles a suspect to ask for his or her name to be withheld from the public. If the bill is passed, it will fall upon the media to place a court request to obtain the right to publish a suspect’s name. 

Defenders of the recent bills claim that they are needed to protect individuals against damages caused by unfounded accusations. ““It may be called the Libel Law, but I call it the ‘publication of truth law’,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, speaking at the Knesset before the first hearing vote of the amendment. “This law isn’t aimed against those who write the facts, but against those who distort the facts, as determined by a court.”

Netanyahu added that the law was needed “to fill a gap that has left the citizens of Israel unprotected, causing them great distress.” 

One of the bill’s initiators, Knesset member David Levin of the right-wing ruling party Likud, defended the proposal as a necessary means of protection against media malpractice. “This bill is not a threat to freedom of speech, rather a threat to the media’s insufferable freedom of defamation, the license to write things which are not true, the power to publish lies, without checking the facts, without making the smallest effort to seek the response of the person whose honour has been tarnished, ” he said in October.

Knesset member Robert Ilatov, of the nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu within the government coalition, described the measure as a media accountability tool: “We can discuss whether ILS 50,000 is too little or ILS 300,000 is too much, and we can compromise in the middle. But let’s talk about the principle – journalists have not been upholding the ethics of journalism these past years.”

Opponents of the bill fear however that it will deter the media from raising sensitive issues. Dalia Dorner, a former Supreme Court Justice and the current President of the Israel Press Council, said in a web interview: “[...] Supporters of the amendment argue that it would ultimately be up to the court to make the final decision [in libel cases]. The problem, though, is that we won’t even get to court. The damage would not affect one individual who cannot prove to have said the truth. The real damage would be in the cooling down of journalism. Journalists and editors will turn down investigations that may expose a true situation, fearing that a couple of minor errors in the investigation process will also expose them to an important payment of damages.” 

For Dalia Dorner, former Supreme Court Justice and current President of the Israel Press Council, “the real damage [of the new anti-libel law] would be in the cooling down of journalism.” (Interview in Hebrew)

Similarly, individuals or organisations who may find themselves subjected to critical media coverage will be able to counter back with long, exhausting media filibusters, making their publication financially unsustainable.

Furthermore, critics argue that the proposed law will muzzle any online discussion, by threatening bloggers and social media users away from posting any comment that could lead to a judicial battle.

Knesset member Zehava Gal-On, of the opposition left-wing party Meretz, accused the government of casting a veil over its own reality: “You want to break the mirror, the media, because the face that is reflected is an ugly one. You are passing a law mainly to put politicians and public figures above the law, to protect yourselves from having your corruption revealed,” she said in an intervention at the Knesset before the vote.

Media independence under threat

The redefinition of the status of the media in Israeli society is not confined to the legislative assembly hall, as reflected by a number of events that have taken place in the past few months.

The shutdown of media outlets and the dismissal of key journalists deemed too critical seem to indicate an attempt to undermine the independence of the media.

One of the most publicised cases involves the commercial television Channel 10. The channel repeatedly announced in the past two months that might close down due to insolvency and appealed to the Knesset’s financial committee for a one-year extension in the payment of royalties and concession rights. All coalition members in the committee voted against the request.

A Channel 10 executive claimed that politicians hinted to him that the channel would be granted a reprieve under the condition that Raviv Druker, a journalist responsible for recent reports shedding a negative light on the Prime Minister and his wife, be let go. Knesset member Rony Bar-On, of the opposition centre-right party Kadima, suggested an intervention from Netanyahu’s office when he revealed that the Israeli Ministry of Finance had recommended an approval of the request, but that a “directive coming from high above” had dismissed the recommendation.

In early November, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA) announced that Keren Neubach, a journalist working for the Israeli public Channel 1, was taken off an investigative news programme.

Several sources are now indicating that Neubach might also be taken off a radio programme she presents daily on the second public radio channel, although her ratings, according to the Israeli press, are the highest for the time slot she occupies.  The IBA union managed to stop her producer’s dismissal at the last moment. While professional motives have been put forward to explain these moves, they remain rather obscure (the official announcement said Neubach did not pass the “screen test”). Neubach regularly treats highly controversial subjects, which often put her on a collision course with the government.

On 17 November the Israeli police shut down the Israeli-Palestinian radio station Kol Hashalom/All for Peace, broadcasting out of Ramallah, after assertions from the Media Ministry that the radio was operating without license. Kol Hashalom disputes the claim, on the grounds that it holds a Palestinian license. Last September, Likud Knesset member Danny Danon had called upon the General Attorney of Israel to open an investigation against the station, accusing it of incitement against Israel.

Israeli-Palestinian Kol Hashalom/All for Peace was shut down on 17 November

In a another move which would further strengthen the Prime Minister’s hold over the media, Netanyahu’s office on 22 November announced that it is considering closing down the Educational Television, which currently operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. Alternatively, it could be subordinated to the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA) which, coincidently, falls under Netanyahu’s portfolio.

There is no indication that the current repressive trend against democratic institutions and values is about to stop. The strengthening of right and extreme-right parties on the political map reflects a worrisome shift in Israeli society as well the lack of a viable, strong strategy from the left to address the situation. 

Aside from a few feeble protestations, the European Union and the United States appear remarkably silent in the face of these developments. 

Tags: bill, democracy, freedom, independence, israel, journalism, law, legislation, libel, media, press,

Related articles

• Can a journalist be forced to name a confidential source?
• Lessons learnt at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia
• Will the scramble for photojournalists to learn video be worth it?
• Biased journalism strains Lithuanian-Polish relations
• How to survive as a journalist in Somalia
• Drone journalism takes off
• Immersive journalism and a step forward for virtual reality
• Building Bridges: U.S.-Pakistan Professional Partnership in Journalism
• EJC seminar journalists reach the frontpage
• Committee to Protect Journalists

• Home |
• Seminars  |
• Events |
• Media Landscape |
• Newsroom|
• Media News|
• Resources

Terms of service and Privacy policy.

Copyright © 1992- 2011 European Journalism Centre. All rights reserved.

Valid XHTML and CSS.

European Journalism Centre

Sonneville-lunet 10
6221KT Maastricht
The Netherlands

Tel. : +31 43 325 40 30
Fax : +32 2 400 42 20

E-mail: info[at]ejc.net