It is therefore no surprise that the media refused the interspection and self-examination that such a overwhelming response dictates. Perhaps the sort of "soul-searching" demanded of the political right by the media in Israel after the assassination of Rabin is appropriate now for the forth estate, whose position, after all, is no less important than that of the political opposition. In fact, at times it is difficult, as the survey succinctly demonstrates, to distinguish between the opposition parties and Israel's media. With the limits imposed by the previous government on "proper speech" in the post-Rabin era, the role of the media grew in dimensions directly related to the new boundaries of speech restriction. Rather than displaying the cutting edge of rough and tumble journalism that so often portrays the reporter as hero, Israeli news commentators, writers and producers are the country's speech police. News footage of interviews have led to arrests of Jews whose language was deemed inappropriate and therefore inciteful. We all remember the case where the police accused an Israeli television news reporter of seeking out and then goading on a Jew living in Kiryat Arba, whose attitudes were well known, into compromising statements which they duly captured on film and then partially aired on television. The result of that escapade was the arrest of that individual.

The all but ignored survey, conducted by Dr. Yaacov Katz of the Community Research Institute at BarIlan University between 1-19 December 1996, polled 1,250 adult Israelis. Dr. Katz stated that those surveyed identified themselves in equal numbers as left leaning and right leaning "in a certified representative sample [of the Israeli population] from Metulla to Eilat." The questions and answers were as follows:

1. In your opinion, does the Israeli mass media objectively relate to the activities of the Israeli Government?
Yes 17%
No 77%
Not clear 6%

1.a. The 77% who answered "No" were asked to identify the direction of the bias:
Positive 5%
Negative 87%
Not clear 8%

2. In your opinion, does the Israeli mass media objectively relate to the activities of the Prime Minister?
Yes 13%
No 76%
Not clear 11%

2.a. The 76% who answered "No" were asked to identify the direction of the bias:
Positive 5%
Negative 88%
Not clear 7%

3. In your opinion, does the Israeli mass media objectively relate to the activities of the IDF and security forces in Judea and Samaria?
Yes 31%
No 52%
Not clear 17%

3a. The 52% who answered "No" were asked to identify the direction of the bias:
Positive 12%
Negative 76%
Not clear 12%

4. In general, is it possible to rely on the objectivity of reports in the Israeli mass media?
Yes 23%
No 66%
Not clear 11%

4.a. The 66% who answered "No" were asked to identify the direction of the bias:
Right 7%
Left 77%
Not clear 16%
(Survey questions and results obtained through - IRIS Information Regarding Israel's Security)

Aside from the obvious unrepresentative and nonobjective nature of Israel's media, as perceived by the overwhelming majority of Israelis participating in the survey, we need seriously be concerned with the total disregard the media has displayed for its readers, listeners and viewers. The results of the survey indicate an increadable 79% of those identifying themselves with the political left believe that the media has a left leaning bias against the government. That is to say, that even those who might agree with a left-wing position recognize an overt leftist bias in the media. This is simply an intolerable position for a profession whose code of honor is based upon its objectivity. Certainly, there are occasions where well meaning people put forth their own agenda without intention, however, this is hardly the case at hand. If we are to believe the results of the survey, Israel's media suffers from a systemic disorder.

The only real remedy for the situation is a reexamination by the media itself of the its role within Israeli society, which hardy seems likely given the quick dismissal of the CRI survey. The alternative is unfortunate, necessary form of coersion that intales the removal of public funds from the primary Israeli medium; the Israel Broadcasting Authority.

The latter suggestion has been made by Israel's Media Watch. The organization ran an advertisement in Haaretz newspaper, December 26, questioning the Israel Broadcasting Authority's annual budget of nearly 700 million new shekels now under deliberation by the Knesset. The advertisement read:

A Public Broadcasting Authority?

Professionals have established that your administration is inadequate. The public does not trust your objectivity. And as usual, we will pay to cover your debts. IMW demands reliable and responsible public broadcasting and therefore calls upon the government:

1) To deal with all complaints raised in the "Ti'um" Report, the Livni Committee Report and the IBA's own internal comptroller's report.
2) To decide on deep cuts in the budget proposal.
3) To freeze all development and construction work at the new broadcasting campus.
4) To assure that the law which calls for a proper representation of opinions and views currently held by the public is upheld."

In order to avoid continued alienation of the Israeli population toward the Israeli media, either the media must, at once, impose upon itself the standards it claims to follow or public funding and rights to publically owned airwaves should be curtailed. Should the situation remain as it is, the notion of the media as an agent of the people is but a mockery of the concept founded in self-advancement and political opportunism. Sadly, the mockery will continue for neither has the media taken any steps to transfom itself into the watchdog of the people, nor has the Knesset taken a stand by reducing the budget of the Israel Broadcast Authority.
# Click for next commentary.# Click for the B'tzedek commentary index.