Amit Schejter is a current visiting scholar at the Helen Diller Institute.
The events of recent days—and perhaps of recent years—during which Israel’s fragile democracy is being repeatedly tested, have caused such a profound upheaval that it is no longer clear what values are under scrutiny or what positions should be taken regarding them.
A clear example of this is the front page and main headline of Israel Hayom from last Friday, April 4, versus the article by Ido Baum in TheMarker on the same day. The former declared in a bold, three-column headline that “Freedom of the Press is Under Attack,” while the latter argued:“Don’t be mistaken: The investigation of journalists in the Qatargate affair strengthens press freedom.”
The paradox of Israel Hayom—and the blatant irony—is hard to miss. Here is a “newspaper”born in sin, whose sole purpose for many years was to disrupt the structure of the Israeli media market by distributing for free, undermining the dominance of Yedioth Ahronoth, and advancing the political interests of one Benjamin Netanyahu, the favorite of the paper’s founder. In other words, this is a publication that comes out regularly—that being its only connection to the term “newspaper”—and was established to damage freedom of the press. The symbiotic relationship between the paper and its publisher with Netanyahu even led to the fall of a government.
Although Israel Hayom has shifted loyalties in recent years, for its own reasons, the burden of proof regarding its transformation into a newspaper that operates according to the ethical standards of journalism still rests on it. So why has Israel Hayom, whose motto is “Telling the truth, straightforward and to the point… to be fair and balanced”—reminiscent of 1984, and which has followed it from its days as the official mouthpiece of one man until today—suddenly sounded the alarm over threats to press freedom?
Because the flames of danger have now reached their own robes (after the public broadcaster, Haaretz, and the commercial channels were threatened): the political commentator of Israel Hayom was summoned to give testimony to the police as part of the “Qatargate” affair, in which advisors who worked close to the Prime Minister are suspected of contact with a foreign agent and of using their positions as PM advisors to covertly promote messages on behalf of the Qatari government.
Summoning journalists for questioning—even as open witnesses—is indeed an extraordinary event. It is characteristic of the darkest regimes. Yet, surprisingly, Ido Baum, a legal analyst at Haaretz whose commitment to press freedom is unquestioned, believes that in this case, it is a positive development that actually strengthens press freedom. According to him, “The mere emergence of the Qatargate affair has brought to the attention of all serious journalists in Israel the understanding that skepticism is required even regarding information coming from those who present themselves as the most senior governmental officials.” Therefore, he argues, it’s good that journalists were summoned for questioning—going forward, they’ll surely be more cautious when automatically typing out messages from government representatives.
But unfortunately, just as Israel Hayom has changed its stripes, Ido Baum is also making a grave mistake. There is no connection between the professionalism that every journalist must demonstrate and the relationship between law enforcement and the press. The laziness that characterizes much of Israeli journalism has turned the Prime Minister’s Office’s message sheet into a legitimate news source. The rare, strategic use of terms like “senior political source” or “source in the Prime Minister’s Office” for diplomatic messaging through the press has, under Netanyahu, become a tool for spreading false messages with built-in deniability—something the Israeli press shamefully collaborates with, even when lives are at stake.
Now, Baum tells us, since they were “surprised” to discover they were being manipulated, their “punishment” is being summoned for testimony or even for investigation. But this is a dangerous and slippery slope. Journalists working according to the accepted ethics of the profession, for a legitimate media outlet that also operates within those ethical boundaries, are always journalists. If they have not committed a crime or witnessed a public criminal act, there is no authorization—and there can be no authorization—to investigate them by law enforcement authorities.
Freedom of expression, and by extension press freedom, is too important to be played with or made conditional based on passing circumstances.