Freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of employment are among the hallmarks of any modern, liberal democracy. Labor MK Eitan Cabel, having decided to uphold those principles, drafted a new bill to protect the print media.
"When it comes to free speech, the print media plays a most pivotal role. ... The goal of this bill is to help deal with one of the problems that created the crisis in this sector, and to allow news outlets to recover," reads the bill's preamble.
Yes, that is a noble goal. If a certain media outlet has more than a 50 percent market share, it might abuse its monopoly-like grip; it might force its competitors to slash prices and make them fall by the wayside. This would hurt free speech and freedom of the press. It might silence those who do not share its views.
Well, that is exactly what pre-2007 Israel looked like. Yedioth Ahronoth justifiably called itself "the country's newspaper," dominating the media landscape as the most widely read paper on weekdays and weekends. According to an market exposure survey conducted by the Target Group Index media research group, some 39.8% of Israelis read it on weekdays. By comparison, only 19.2% read Maariv. This gap was also noticeable on weekends, with 50.7% reading Yedioth, compared with 24.8% who read Maariv. Yedioth also had a whole host of local newspapers in circulation, including the most widely read Russian-language paper, Vesti.
Yedioth's grip was also manifested through the electronic media, which considered Yedioth reporters authoritative pundits on a whole host of issues: politics, public policy, economics, culture, and sport. In fact, Yedioth correspondents were treated as if they were jacks of all trades. Yedioth responded in kind, providing extensive access to the glamorous TV "stars." Those who paid the price for this monolithic press were Israelis at large.
And then, in 2007, the whole media landscape was transformed. American businessman Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson, decided to launch a free daily that would be handed out at key distribution points. Until recently, Israelis could also have the paper home-delivered for free. The Israeli middle class, which is now the most prized constituency in Israeli politics, greatly benefited, as it could consume news free of charge. The TGI survey that was conducted shortly after the launch made it clear that Israelis liked what they were getting.
Yedioth's monopoly had suddenly come to an abrupt end. As Israel's Media Watch noted, the electronic media initially ignored this new, unorthodox paper. But over time, it started covering this new phenomenon. That said, the paper should not rest on its laurels; there is always room for improvement.
Cabel tries to cast Israel Hayom in a negative light simply because it redefined the media landscape.
"The lack of fair, merit-based competition can be attributable to the fact that some of the papers are distributed for free. Newspapers, whose financial wellbeing is dependent on their price on the news stand, cannot offer competitive rates. Fair competition has been thrown by the wayside, making a sector-wide recovery impossible," he said.
Attorney Elad Man took a page from Cabel's book and proceeded to write a critical piece titled "Who pays for the freebies-" in The Seventh Eye, a media watchdog. In the piece he states (or rather assumes) that Israel Hayom created unfair competition in the advertising industry by offering ad space at a massive discount. This had competitors all but go under. But in a real free-market economy, there would be a ban on advertising in state-funded outlets, whose discount rates hurt competition.
According to multiple TGI surveys, the print media has actually seen its readership go up since Israel Hayom first launched. The public has become exposed to a variety of opinions and feels less of a pinch in its pocket. This also means more people see the ads, allowing more exposure to those who would otherwise not be able to afford ad space. On top of that, Israel Hayom is not the only freebie out there.
So, has anything really been thrown by the wayside as a result of Israel Hayom? Yes, the ideological monopoly Cabel and his cohorts had enjoyed over the years. The post-Zionist elite is on the defensive. It seeks to protect its status by employing Bolshevik tactics -- the competitors must be eliminated, even if Israel's pluralism comes to an end.
What is surprising is that there are some smart MKs who have signed off on Cabel's legislation: Robert Ilatov (Yisrael Beytenu), Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), Elazar Stern (Hatnuah), Ariel Atias (Shas), Ilan Gilon (Meretz) and Yoel Razvozov (Yesh Atid). Likud is the only Zionist party in which no MK is in favor of the bill. The sponsors of the bill would be well served by shelving this piece of legislation. Otherwise they will have forever tarnished their reputations by their ill-conceived attempt to undo Israel's pluralistic underpinnings.
Professor Eli Pollak is the chairman of Israel's Media Watch.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו