“Your threat is back”: Communications Minister Shlomo Karai announced at the end of last week that he intends to cut hundreds of millions from the budget of the Public Broadcasting Corporation, and once again caused a storm. In addition, the incoming communications minister stated his vision and said: There is no place in this era for public broadcasting.”
“The liberal economic concept of the Likud and the economic right is to remove barriers, regulation and factors that harm the free market and competition,” said Karai in the context of the corporation. “When there is one player who receives millions of shekels a year, including the various councils, this constitutes a significant barrier to competition. New players find it difficult to cope with the ability of a major player who receives huge budgets. No matter what the fate of the corporation as a player will be, we will continue to encourage original content creations and productions Source. We will interweave source productions horizontally across the media market and not as one player whose access to public funds is exclusive and blocks the rest. In my eyes, there is no place for a corporation in an era of diversity and a wide variety of channels.”
And the questions are asked how high is the chance of closing the corporation really? How is the current threat of Karai different from all the threats made so far against the corporation? What are the contexts and political interests of such a move? Are there precedents in the world for closing the only public channel because of political pressures? If indeed there will be a cut of hundreds of millions of shekels. Does the channel have a chance to survive in a different format (studio broadcasts only Style Channel 14?), what will happen with the channel’s luxury series? Will Keshet and Reshet take up the gauntlet to buy productions like “Kopa Rasht” and “Fauda”, the consequences for Eurovision.
How much is the corporation worth?
The first question that is asked in this matter is, how well-founded is the slogan that “we need public broadcasting in Israel”, and on the other hand, is the claim true, held by those who call for the closure of the broadcasting corporation, that the low viewing percentages of “Kan” content compared to the commercial channels prove that the public should not pay for it with their own money .
Dr. Yasmin Sasson, a lecturer at Mansher and Sapir Academic College, says: “Public broadcasting, as it is called, aims to produce television and radio broadcasts devoid of commercial influences (advertisements that lead to political considerations) and to offer balanced and diverse broadcasts, which commercial channels cannot provide. This is the strength of public broadcasting around the world – the fact that it is devoid of commercial influence enables the plurality of voices in society. And you can think of the model of the British BBC as an excellent example. Precisely because we are driven to a broadcast free of commercial and political influence, and a desire to produce statecraft and fine content to watch.”
“I assume that there will be a lot of good talk about the flagship series of Kaan 11, which proved that quality is not a dirty word,” adds Sasson, “from ‘The Commandant’ and ‘Coupe Raisht’, but I would like to highlight programs that appeal to the youth such as ‘Mikif Milano’, and the rest of the content for ages The young people who are the closest we’ve had here to a channel that focuses on the combination of entertainment and education. I believe that familiarity with this broadcast schedule, which is also available for free legally on the Internet through an app here or on the website, will prove the significance of an original Israeli work. In this context, the multitude of ‘reading voices’ for Kan’s productions allows the fertile ground for a new work.”
“The Israel Public Broadcasting Corporation is particularly important due to its role in shaping and preserving the Israeli culture of the citizens of the country and its need to provide the various citizens with a variety of cultural content that they would not have received without the commercial component in media activity,” adds Mr. Dr. Matan Aharoni, from the School of Communication at Ariel University “Indeed, it seems that the corporation is doing a wonderful job in all its affiliates – on the excellent television channel here 11, which produces special, high-quality, diverse and uncompromising original programs. Most of them get a lot of resonance and a seal of quality. They are the ones that diversify Israeli culture and unite the citizens around content that is not just reality shows, which the commercial channels endlessly produce.”
“The popular radio stations operated by the corporation also provide citizens with information and diverse cultural content, which commercial radio stations would not provide. The digital division of the corporation also produces excellent content intended for netizens. These are contents that commercial channels and producers do not seem to want or think of producing. They deal in a way Smart and creative for the most part in Israeli identity and culture for its diversity and uniqueness.”
How high is the chance of closing the corporation really?
It seems that public broadcasting is already used to working under a sword raised above the neck, but this time it seems that the threat is more real than before. “The basic idea of public broadcasting is its independence, when the citizens of the variety of opinions, sectors and nationalities, the country and its culture are at the forefront of its attention. God forbid, not the government,” adds Aharoni. “The threat of closing the corporation appears to be related to an old, unfulfilled desire of a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu to control its contents in order to be its mouthpiece, as Miri Regev, as the last spokeswoman for the government, claimed back in 2016: ‘What is the corporation worth if we don’t control it?’ The role of the public corporation is to enrich the cultural content of the country, to diversify the content and to be accessible to all types of the population in Israel. For this, the citizens pay. If you are looking for how to cut the budget – first you have to wonder why there are so many unnecessary ministers and deputy ministers, who cost the taxpayers millions, and why New ministries were established, such as the most puzzling ministry, the ministry of information (propaganda?), which only shows the obsession of the government and its head to control the media in an unreasonable and undemocratic way.”
Prof. Udi Labell from the School of Communication and BSA Center at Bar Ilan University claims on the other hand: “It is true that the current government, similar to the ideologies of the new right in the world, is more inclined to adopt strategies of destroying hegemonic arenas, than strategies of integrating into them and inserting its people into the content. But until this happens regarding the corporation, I can think of at least three reasons that the Prime Minister’s face, through the Minister of Communications, is not for closing the corporation. The first – that the real hidden fantasy of Netanyahu and his wife is to change the way they are covered in the corporation. It will not satisfy them to see themselves covered in a flattering way at the ceremony of lighting the beacons on Mount Herzl on Channel 14.”
“In my opinion, the dream is to strive for flattering coverage on the so-called ‘National Channel.’ will penetrate without resistance from within many of their associates; and the third thing, and it is not political at all, is the fact that we live in the State of Israel, which is fraught with strategic threats – and the thought that we will be left here without a channel through which state spokesmen can convey behavioral, informative and other messages to the public in an emergency – is unacceptable” .
Dr. Alina Bernstein, a lecturer at the School of Communication in the College of Administration’s academic track: “It seems to me that both substantively and as part of the opposition to further moves by the new government, there will be a very large opposition to this move. On the one hand, it is not certain that the majority of the public cares, on the other hand, their people do care. These are powerful people with access to the media. I really hope that doesn’t happen. The problem is that the corporation may not actually close, but such changes will be made in its financing that it will kill it.”
How is the current threat of Karai different from all the threats made so far against the corporation?
Bernstein: “The current threat is in a political context where it doesn’t seem like there will be a stop like it was at the time when Kahlon stood on the back foot and stopped the closing of the corporation. Beyond that, it seems that if it is not closed, then changes in the directions that Kraei is proposing will completely change the nature of the corporation as a public broadcasting organization committed to the public and not to politicians or economic interests. Public broadcasting in its original British model precisely sought to distance itself from economic/commercial interests as in the USA and political interests as in what was in the Eastern Bloc in Europe.”
“Krai’s threats are different from past threats in that they are against a non-hateful channel,” Labell adds. “In the past, Channel 1 was a controversial channel. The right-wing despised it because it was perceived as ‘leftist’, or ‘ashist.’ In addition – everyone who supported a proper manager criticized him because he was made up of corrupt committees that were perceived as wasteful and ineffective. The audience was exposed to Channel 1 between one technician strike and another. Only now it is a channel whose viewers are its customers voluntarily, without forced payment of a fee. They are exposed to attractive productions, And some of the broadcasts receive tremendous ratings and appreciation. There is no way for Kerei to ride a wave of hatred for the channel.”
“In my opinion, this time the attempt to close the corporation is real because there is no one to fight for its existence in the current government compared to the threats in the previous times,” says Prof. Anat First, media researcher and dean of the School of Communication at Netanya Academic College. “This time we will see if the other media bodies and other cultural bodies will pass over this in silence. Perhaps crowdfunding and the help of wealthy people will be able to allow the channel to survive. This time the determination of the government ministers to change the Genesis order is stronger and more possible than ever. That is why every minister will want to prove how much he was able to change/ destroy existing buildings”.
“The threat to public broadcasting is real, and fits perfectly with the regime revolution and the crushing of the High Court and the rule of law,” explains Dr. Yuval Karniel, an expert in law and communication from Reichman University. Karniel, who previously served as the chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Broadcasting Authority and was the legal advisor of the Second Television and Radio Authority, adds: “The current government aims to reduce criticism of its actions, both by the court and by the independent media. The public media today in Israel, and especially the Public Broadcasting Corporation, is such an independent body, designed from its birth to operate separately from the government and its subordinates. The Israeli Public Broadcasting Law states in Section 7 (b) as follows: The content provided by the Israel Broadcasting Corporation shall be independent, directed to all citizens of the State of Israel and its residents, shall reflect and document the State of Israel’s being a Jewish and democratic state, its values and Israel’s heritage, and shall give fair, equal and balanced expression to the variety of views and opinions prevalent in the public in Israel”.
“The independent content is what hinders the government and the Minister of Communications who are trying to control the public discourse and all the review mechanisms,” claims Karniel. “Therefore, this is a real threat. The fear is not only from the Public Broadcasting News Corporation, but also from free and critical productions such as ‘The Jews are Coming’, ‘The Commander’, or any other drama, which may have content that contradicts the spirit of the current government. There is no precedent in the world To such a closure, but on the contrary, to a process of governmental control of the contents. It is difficult to say which is worse. It is important to say that even cutting budgets will actually lead to the closure or reduction of the corporation’s activities, so that it will not be able to perform its role in Israeli society.”
The day after
If Keri does not engage in talks at Alma, and there will indeed be a cut of hundreds of millions of shekels from the corporation’s budget, which according to the channel’s captains will lead to its closure – the question arises as to whether the channel has a chance to survive in a different format (studio broadcasts only, Channel 14 style?), what will happen to the luxury series of the channel? Will Keshet and Reshet take up the gauntlet to buy productions like “Kopa Rasht” and “Hacomadat”, and what will be the consequences for Eurovision.
“Media organizations are reinventing themselves every time. Not only at the level of ownership – also at the level of platforms,” Labell claims. “And Krei may be fighting the war of yesterday. One thing is clear to him too: the day the corporation becomes Channel 14 – he will lose the battle. Because there is already Channel 14 and we know its ratings.”
“The channel must have a budget to meet the productions it has now,” says Bernstein. “Extremely successful original productions (as mentioned locally and even internationally) also in Britain today there is a discussion about the financing of the successful public channel BBC and there are ideas for financing methods, but it is clear that it is impossible to maintain a successful public channel like the corporation today without significant financing. I am really not sure that the commercial channels will pick up You may have the gauntlet with content that is already successful, but what about the following content that has not yet been produced? Regarding Eurovision – it is in the hands of the European organization that brings together public broadcasting channels. If ours is no longer public according to their definitions, then of course the corporation will no longer be part of the organization and as a result we will not be able to participate in Eurovision”.
“It is also clear that any damage to the channel’s independence or news broadcasts will result in Israel’s removal from the European Broadcasting Union, which has clear rules on the nature of public broadcasting,” Karniel adds. “It should be known that the commercial media cannot today and will not be able to in the future fill the void that will be created in the event of the closure of the Israel Broadcasting Corporation, they do not have the resources to do so, they are completely dependent on advertisers and viewing rates, which are in constant decline. The closure of the corporation will almost completely eliminate the drama industry And Israeli documentary cinema will be a serious blow to thousands of workers and to the entire Israeli culture, not only to democracy.”