What are the current  trends in Israel’s media landscape?

We face very intensive attacks on the media freedom in Israel as part of a well-crafted master plan by the current government. One of its main dimensions is a series of legislations and bills. They target the public broadcaster by presenting bills to privatize it or to link the annual budget to political monitoring in terms of content, for example. They also target the private, commercial TV stations by trying to take control of the rating committee, which decides which channel will get more commercials, affecting their economic sustainability. Another cluster is to shut down media outlets. It began with Al-Jazeera. But under a very foggy, vague definition of “endangering the security of the State of Israel” they want to be able to shut down any media outlet not aligning with them.

What role do hostile takeovers play as part of these attacks on media freedom?

So far, they have been carried out regarding certain regulatory forums such as the board of committee of the public broadcaster and of certain news divisions, for example. Against the recent nomination of a former member of Knesset thought to be allied with Netanyahu as editor-in-chief of the Channel 13 news the Union of Journalists has filed a petition at the Supreme Court together with our chapter at Channel 13 news. Ultimately, we have managed to stop that effort. So, they have now nominated professional editor-in-chief. Against the recent sanctions that the government has managed to impose on Haaretz to weaken its economic sustainability we also petitioned the Supreme Court. We think these sanctions are illegal. You cannot benefit those who align with you and punish those who criticize you.

Haaretz is an important and renowned newspaper publishing not only in Hebrew but also in English. As a liberal and secular publication it is often smeared and demonized by right-wingers as betraying the national interest. How exactly does that unfold?

There is a larger and very powerful smear campaign against media outlets, individual journalists, and against the freedom of press. This campaign is organized, orchestrated and sometimes even] funded. Every time Netanyahu goes on air, either in live broadcast on his social media accounts or on television, he will say something ugly against the media in Israel. He usually calls them “poisoning channels” or “Al-Jazeera channels” to suggest that they are engaged in treason.

Last time when Netanyahu rarely opened his live broadcast to questions from journalists, he not only didn’t answer any of the questions properly. He also ridiculed that individual journalist and incited against journalists in general by calling them “liars.” This toxic atmosphere has led to an increase of SLAPPS. In Israel, we don’t have a definition of SLAPP in the legal system yet but we see many politicians who filed all kinds of defamation suits against journalists as intimidation.

Given his demonization of journalism and journalists you have described, how does Prime Minister Netanyahu reach out to the Israeli public then?

Since taking office again in January 2023, Netanyahu refuses to give a sit-down interview in Hebrew to any of Israel’s mainstream media. Since the beginning of the current war, he gave endless interviews in English to many American TV channels and other publications but only two interviews in Hebrew – both of them for Channel 14, which not doing any kind of professional journalism. As an Israeli version of Fox news, they’re mainly engaged in supporting Prime Minister Netanyahu personally and spreading lies and conspiracy theories like that the army was conspiring against Netanyahu and, thus, would be responsible for the October 7th attack.

Together with the proposed so-called judicial reform from 2023, the rhetoric and the policies you have described sound very much like the classical playbook of right-wing populist governments as we know them from Poland and Hungary, for instance, targeting both independent judiciary and media as power limiting institutions. What makes the Israeli situation under Prime Minister Netanyahu special?

That he is being indicted, among other things, for corruption with two very central media outlets, Yedioth Aharonot and Walla, to get positive coverage. Since Netanyahu understands that the media is a major player in terms of how he is perceived in the public he wants to control the narrative and to talk to his base encouraging them to hate certain media outlets and targeting especially these individual journalists who cover his trial. In contrast, previous right-wing governments in Israel have respected the judicial system and, more or less, also the freedom of press.

Usually, one of the first media policy initiatives from right-wing-populist governments is to weaken the existing public broadcasting stations they are accusing of being part of a left-liberal elite conspiring against them and their fellows. Ultimately, however, the main aim is to place politically loyal personnel there. How is the situation with KAN, the public broadcaster in Israel?

This move is easy because it’s the taxpayer’s money that goes into these channels. In terms of rhetoric, you can easily make people believe they don’t reflect the sentiment of “the people.” So, the attacks on KAN are based on the idea that we don’t need another news department and –that they are not diverse enough, don’t represent all the opinions, they are left-wing supporters and, they are, overall, left-wing supporters.

KAN is a very significant player in the TV industry of the country. They’re very much viewed on the digital platforms in general, including news. KAN has also some very strong journalists exposing all these political wrongdoings. In contrast to the previous public broadcaster existing until 2017, KAN is politically independent in terms of budget, regulation, and nominations. And this is exactly why they’re targeted by the current government. But they had tried already before by trying to create a separate company for the news. But then the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) successfully threatened them to not be able anymore to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest or get licenses to broadcast football championships. So they backed up. But all the time, they try to get the news.

How does this loaded and polarized atmosphere affect the security of journalists in Israel?

As Union of Journalists, we witness a very worrying rise in violence against journalists. People are increasingly violent against TV crews and journalists because they are incited by all this. Many people have been in the streets since this government took office and has announced their so-called reforms in the judicial system and also after October 7th to demonstrate against the government and for the release of the of the hostages. In this inflammable atmosphere in the streets, violence against citizens and journalists also comes from the police under far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

What role does Israel’s liberal civil society play in the national media environment?

Civil society is well-organized to protect the free press and the institutional media against all these legislations, bills and other attacks. Recently, organizations which do fact checking of statements by politicians have been established such as Fake Reporter. This influences the intensity and speed mainstream media does fact checking when Netanyahu speaks and goes live broadcast.

How do you characterize the access to reliable information for Israeli media consumers when it comes to the current war in Gaza?

If you want to get access to information, you can get access to information – from foreign media, through social media or via Haaretz and some smaller independent media outlets which are covering the war in Gaza properly. The problem is with the mainstream media outlets that they don’t cover what’s going on in Gaza. In a way, they are still telling the story of October 7^th time and again.

How do you explain this?

Especially because of the hostages, but mainly because most of the Israeli public is so much engaged in its own sorrow and pain that they cannot contain the suffering of the other, especially of the people in Gaza. Some Israelis don’t care about them, others think that they deserve it because people in Gaza would collectively support Hamas. Israeli mainstream media tries to play it according to the sentiment of the people and doesn’t want to make them angry. But by that they betray their role as journalists.

This sounds like a very fundamental critique of Israeli journalism these days.

At the beginning of the war and the first few days after October 7^th, it was only the journalist who informed the Israeli public about what was going on the ground. The journalists were the first to understand the scale of the events. Also shortly after the October 7 attack, they managed to identify the fact that all the state agencies and all the services had collapsed. Many people had to be dependent on volunteers and especially those who were the target by Hamas and were under this massacre, they were forced to evacuate their homes because their home was destroyed. But the state was not there for them, and they had to lean on volunteer groups. The media really reflected that very powerfully and was critical against the state so I can give them that credit. But since then, the media more and more behaves like a cheerleader of the Army.

What are the main challenges for Israeli journalists covering the current Gaza war?

The Army wants to control the narrative and is the one that decides who gets into Gaza embed, with what unit and for how long. Sometimes they prefer to take New York Times, for example, to see something that they want them to echo internationally. Another time they decide to take in Channel 12 because it is more encouraging towards the Army. So they play with it. However, there is no independent media in Gaza either because on the other side we have Hamas in control. That all makes collecting evidence by independent media impossible. On top, there is military censorship filtering what can be published and what not based on army perspective. Now it’s time of war and military censorship is more reasonable that the military doesn’t want to expose its operation or its planning operations. I understand that, but sometimes it goes too far.

In times of war, it’s a big dilemma and especially in this war, which at least at the beginning, had felt also to me like an existential war. It raises the question: What are you? Are you first an Israeli patriot who wants your country to win this war? Or are you first a non-biased journalist who has to do his job? In such a situation, I don’t think there is a right answer to that question. But now I think the dilemma doesn’t exist anymore because now as a journalist you must show the whole picture, the whole reality on the ground. You can prioritize how you cover it, but you must diversify the coverage and must not be a cheerleader of the army. I’ve been a journalist for many years and I covered this conflict very intensively and all the time. I tried to be honest about what I cover and how I cover it, even if it was not very easy to consume. But I felt this was my responsibility.

German version