Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
"You Decide": Promo for IBA TV show on tunes from the '60s
At long last our politicians have decided to address the perpetual crisis afflicting Channel 1 television. The station, long mismanaged, has a budget deficit approaching NIS 100 million.
Proposed reforms include some “restructuring” and a cut in the 1,900 workers, many superfluous, whose salaries consume much of the channel’s NIS 800,000,000 budget, while fomenting Byzantine political struggles among its various components.
To defend themselves against such cuts, Channel 1 personalities, during a recent primetime Friday night news program, presented a dramatized skit featuring David Witztum, Ayala Hasson and Geula Even. Dressed in battle fatigues, they valiantly repelled assaults by a formidable enemy, the commercial channels, who were determined “to destroy public broadcasting.”
In contrast with commercial channels that have only profit in mind, Channel 1 would have us believe it represents the public interest: the taxpayers, who generously fund it, and the not so modest salaries of its stars.
Reality, however, is somewhat different. True, public broadcasting, say in America, while liberal-left like most university derived enterprises, tries at least to be pluralistic and fair-minded because it is funded mostly by contributions.
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed, nor does it provide services not available elsewhere. The public has nothing to say about the way it is managed or what contents it offers. Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions, who, in cahoots with the politicians who provide them with their profligate budgets, follow their own political agenda.
They constantly struggle for power, resources, jobs, influence and control of our public discourse, promoting mediocrity. They force out independent-minded creative talent. Their power struggles, based on featherbedding, cause waste and dysfunction. This has caused Channel 1 to disintegrate from within.
Outside competition only aggravated this process by applying added pressure on an organization that is already disorganized and losing its credibility and its audience (ratings), its ostensible raison d’etre.
CHANNEL 1 has become the mouthpiece of an ideological cabal that prevents a plurality of views. Take, for example, its coverage of economics, a system that has great impact on our lives.
You would expect a public station to present a full, multi-dimensional picture. Instead it mostly promotes the views of commentators hostile to market economics and favoring government intervention. It has featured—an astounding 73 times—Prof. Danny Gutwein (a historian, self-described socialist and enemy of privatization) and Momi Dahan, Arie Arnon and Shlomo Svirski, all economists who essentially share Gutwein’s attitudes. They were never once challenged or asked any difficult questions. Their leftist opinions obviously pleased the Channel 1 journalists.
Compare the wide exposure given to these academics to the near-zero times Israel’s leading economists have been asked to comment on economic matters—top, internationally recognized economists like Prof. David Levhari, or the late professors Marshall Sarnat and Haim Barkai. Clearly, those who support a market economy and less government involvement, even if top in their field, have no chance of airing their views on Channel 1.
Their position is obviously anathema to the leftist clique that has taken over public broadcasting and exploits it to promote its regressive agenda, inflicting great damage on Israel by undermining support for badly needed reforms and by promoting wasteful policies that cost billions while harming the very poor they were supposed to help.
CHANNEL 1’s economic desk has focused for years now on the shrill repetition of mantras about how the poor are being exploited and the rich pampered by a capitalist, “Thatcherite,” cruel economy ostensibly created in Israel by the reforms designed to liberalize the Israeli economy and reduce excessive government interference that strangles growth.
Its reporters know better. They are not so ignorant of economics not to realize that the economic system prevalent in Israel is anything but capitalist: namely, a competitive, open-market economy. They know full well that it is rife with anti-competitive monopolies controlled by oligarchs, bureaucrats and unions. They have come to dominate our economy because the great concentration of economic power created by Israel’s 50 years of socialism and statism facilitated the transfer of such concentrated assets into their hands via a fake process of “privatization.”
STILL, THEY keep repeating their incendiary populist nonsense, rejecting from public broadcasting anyone who does not support their pro-government-intervention propaganda. When politically weak reformers were struggling against our politically powerful monopolies, especially the banks, public TV never gave them a voice. It never once devoted a program to expose the exploitation of consumers, especially the poorer ones, by monopolies, depriving them of about a third of their measly income. They actually helped undermine policies meant to break monopolies and promote growth, the chief way to help the poor.
The same un-pluralistic approach that governs TV’s presentation of economics is maintained in its treatment of politics and culture. Public TV is monolithic. But that was not mentioned in that Friday night skit defending our putative “public broadcasting.”
Log in or Register
What’s ‘public’ about their broadcasting?
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’08
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
Filed under:
media
Related links
Israel Broadcasting Authority
"You Decide": Promo for IBA TV show on tunes from the '60s
At long last our politicians have decided to address the perpetual crisis afflicting Channel 1 television. The station, long mismanaged, has a budget deficit approaching NIS 100 million.
Proposed reforms include some “restructuring” and a cut in the 1,900 workers, many superfluous, whose salaries consume much of the channel’s NIS 800,000,000 budget, while fomenting Byzantine political struggles among its various components.
To defend themselves against such cuts, Channel 1 personalities, during a recent primetime Friday night news program, presented a dramatized skit featuring David Witztum, Ayala Hasson and Geula Even. Dressed in battle fatigues, they valiantly repelled assaults by a formidable enemy, the commercial channels, who were determined “to destroy public broadcasting.”
In contrast with commercial channels that have only profit in mind, Channel 1 would have us believe it represents the public interest: the taxpayers, who generously fund it, and the not so modest salaries of its stars.
Reality, however, is somewhat different. True, public broadcasting, say in America, while liberal-left like most university derived enterprises, tries at least to be pluralistic and fair-minded because it is funded mostly by contributions.
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed, nor does it provide services not available elsewhere. The public has nothing to say about the way it is managed or what contents it offers. Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions, who, in cahoots with the politicians who provide them with their profligate budgets, follow their own political agenda.
They constantly struggle for power, resources, jobs, influence and control of our public discourse, promoting mediocrity. They force out independent-minded creative talent. Their power struggles, based on featherbedding, cause waste and dysfunction. This has caused Channel 1 to disintegrate from within.
Outside competition only aggravated this process by applying added pressure on an organization that is already disorganized and losing its credibility and its audience (ratings), its ostensible raison d’etre.
CHANNEL 1 has become the mouthpiece of an ideological cabal that prevents a plurality of views. Take, for example, its coverage of economics, a system that has great impact on our lives.
You would expect a public station to present a full, multi-dimensional picture. Instead it mostly promotes the views of commentators hostile to market economics and favoring government intervention. It has featured—an astounding 73 times—Prof. Danny Gutwein (a historian, self-described socialist and enemy of privatization) and Momi Dahan, Arie Arnon and Shlomo Svirski, all economists who essentially share Gutwein’s attitudes. They were never once challenged or asked any difficult questions. Their leftist opinions obviously pleased the Channel 1 journalists.
Compare the wide exposure given to these academics to the near-zero times Israel’s leading economists have been asked to comment on economic matters—top, internationally recognized economists like Prof. David Levhari, or the late professors Marshall Sarnat and Haim Barkai. Clearly, those who support a market economy and less government involvement, even if top in their field, have no chance of airing their views on Channel 1.
Their position is obviously anathema to the leftist clique that has taken over public broadcasting and exploits it to promote its regressive agenda, inflicting great damage on Israel by undermining support for badly needed reforms and by promoting wasteful policies that cost billions while harming the very poor they were supposed to help.
CHANNEL 1’s economic desk has focused for years now on the shrill repetition of mantras about how the poor are being exploited and the rich pampered by a capitalist, “Thatcherite,” cruel economy ostensibly created in Israel by the reforms designed to liberalize the Israeli economy and reduce excessive government interference that strangles growth.
Its reporters know better. They are not so ignorant of economics not to realize that the economic system prevalent in Israel is anything but capitalist: namely, a competitive, open-market economy. They know full well that it is rife with anti-competitive monopolies controlled by oligarchs, bureaucrats and unions. They have come to dominate our economy because the great concentration of economic power created by Israel’s 50 years of socialism and statism facilitated the transfer of such concentrated assets into their hands via a fake process of “privatization.”
STILL, THEY keep repeating their incendiary populist nonsense, rejecting from public broadcasting anyone who does not support their pro-government-intervention propaganda. When politically weak reformers were struggling against our politically powerful monopolies, especially the banks, public TV never gave them a voice. It never once devoted a program to expose the exploitation of consumers, especially the poorer ones, by monopolies, depriving them of about a third of their measly income. They actually helped undermine policies meant to break monopolies and promote growth, the chief way to help the poor.
The same un-pluralistic approach that governs TV’s presentation of economics is maintained in its treatment of politics and culture. Public TV is monolithic. But that was not mentioned in that Friday night skit defending our putative “public broadcasting.”
More recent commentary
The New Republic
19 May ’11
Economic Miracle
A Middle East peace strategy that could actually work.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Mar ’11
The government-tycoons-media triangle
Israel needs to slash its state budget by as much as possible if it wants a chance at fighting waste and corruption.
The Jerusalem Post
9 Mar ’11
Welfare and rebellion: The economic factor in the Arab uprisings
Too little attention has been paid to how Egypt’s socialist past and welfare-state present shaped the current rebellion.
The Jerusalem Post
7 Feb ’11
Is all quiet on the economic front?
The Herzliya Conference has become an important international event, but one central issue is absent: Israel’s debilitating economic concentration.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’11
Teaching an elephant to dance
It’s highly unlikely that government can ever learn to make long-term plans and execute them efficiently.
The Jerusalem Post
23 Dec ’10
Hellenization and Enlightenment: Post-Hanukka ruminations
How can one dare compare narrow-minded religion with the all-embracing faith of universality and equality that is socialism?
The Jerusalem Post
1 Dec ’10
Would Milton Friedman have approved?
Many of the social and economic troubles we are experiencing are due to the public’s lack of understanding of the need for economic literacy.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’10
Perverting public discourse
The PM’s courageous decision to tackle economic concentration was misrepresented by several of our media publications—owned of course by tycoons.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Oct ’10
Breaking Israel’s monopolies
Economic concentration hurts the country’s viability and the chances for peace.
The Jerusalem Post
4 Oct ’10
Israel’s progress undermined
A damaging ethos of ‘welfarism’ and distributive politics has come to dominate not only academia but our cultural, military and even our business elites.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Aug ’10
Unable to decide
The reformers must know the importance of the reform’s success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails.
The Jerusalem Post
13 Jul ’10
Elana Kagan, terrorism and the law
Kagan’s admiration for Justice Aharon Barak’s philosophy may have revealed her own predilection for radical judicial activism.
The Jerusalem Post
30 May ’10
Yes, break them up
We must dismantle the oligarch-owned monopolies that impoverish the Israeli consumer and choke our economy.
The Wall Street Journal
18 May ’10
Land of silicon and money
The OECD’s invitation to Israel is a “seal of approval” but the country still needs more reforms.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Feb ’10
The surprise of it all
The world’s astonishment at Israel’s response to the Haiti disaster is insulting. What we saw there was Israel’s true face.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Jan ’10
Hi-tech prospects and pitfalls
Individual initiative and freedom are essential for creativity—in hi-tech as in all other spheres.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Oct ’09
A woman who knew her worth
As far as Rose Friedman was concerned, public kudos did not matter that much. She persisted in being a rose, no matter what.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Sep ’09
Movies in Nablus, dramas in Bethlehem
Lasting peace must grow from the bottom up, from an “economic peace process” that proves what advantages peace has to offer on a daily basis. It cannot come from signing peace agreements with radical and corrupt entities propped up by corrupting Western handouts.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Aug ’09
Israel’s ‘scrambled’ economic system
A courageous recent film has exposes the strong connection between Israeli oligarchs and bureaucrats. Unfortunately however the film’s simplistic pseudo-Marxist treatment is more misleading than revealing.
The Jerusalem Post
24 May ’09
The economy: look to the future
Netanyahu paid heavily to pass a budget in time; his “partners”’ bargaining tactics, bordering on blackmail, reflect poorly on our politics.
The Jerusalem Post
4 May ’09
Reform: prospects and pitfalls
Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent economic plan has great promise but faces obstacles—such as the media and the Histadrut—that may undermine its success.
The Jerusalem Post
11 Apr ’09
Big government? Yes, but there’s a reason
Is Binyamin Netanyahu’s government too big? Yes. So why would Netanyahu create such an unwieldy beast?
The Jerusalem Post
30 Mar ’09
To bail or not to bail
Should the government bail out those of our tycoons who cannot redeem NIS 100 billion worth of bonds?
The Wall Street Journal
12 Mar ’09
Mideast peace can start with economic growth
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians has resulted in war not peace. There’s a better way.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’09
Warning cries from Herzliya
The government is dysfunctional. The question is why—and how to mend it.
The Jerusalem Post
2 Feb ’09
A lesser economic evil
All government deficit spending is bad. But sometimes deficits are unavoidable. And some deficits are better then others.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Dec ’08
Spinners and cheaters
Why not exploit the crisis to destroy what little freedom Netanyahu’s reforms brought to the economy? Why care if the country will lose its only hope of deliverance from the economic retardation caused by our statist heritage?
The Jerusalem Post
3 Dec ’08
Precipitating the next collapse
Focusing on a putative pension crisis distracts our attention from the real serious crisis that a worldwide recession is bound to create here.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Oct ’08
The panic-mongers’ one-note chorus
The country, the pundits conclude, must return to the good old days of “social democracy.”
The Jerusalem Post
15 Jul ’08
The banks are bamboozling us again
In the name of stability the comptroller has ignored many of the banks’ offenses.
The Jerusalem Post
29 Apr ’08
An Irish-style banana republic
It must be either naiveté or cynicism that allows “Israel 2028” to recommend a reform that will make government a larger and a more efficient instrument for economic growth.
The New York Sun
29 Apr ’08
Israel still doesn’t get economy
Israel’s elites—especially the chattering classes in the press and the academy—are hostile to capitalism because our universities’ social sciences and liberal arts departments are dominated by post-modernist and neo-Marxist professors.
Ideas matter. Hostility to capitalism exacts a great price from the Israeli economy and from its hapless workers.
inFocus
2 Apr ’08
US charity to Israel reconsidered
Jewish institutional efforts must now undergo a period of reform and greater accountability. Some charitable efforts should be privatized. Individuals or groups of donors must take personal responsibility for specific projects, to ensure that funds are dispensed in a responsible and cost effective manner.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Mar ’08
Israel’s no-win strategy
Israeli politicians are preoccupied with political machinations designed to buy support from powerful interest groups by distributing government largesse. This causes not only the factionalization of politics and growing corruption, but consumes time and energy that leadership should use to address life and death issues.
The Jerusalem Post
20 Feb ’08
Dangerous infatuation
Government can no more control powerful economic forces than it can the rise and fall of tides. To effectively fulfill its nightwatchman role—to protect us from internal and external violence and to enforce contracts—government must be kept limited.
The Jerusalem Post
21 Nov ’07
A year without Milton Friedman
This man did more good for humanity than any other.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’07
Getting beyond the teachers’ strike
As long as education remains a government monopoly, it is bound to function like all other government monopolies, where union bosses fill the vacuum that lack of defined ownership creates, and monopoly power allows them to blackmail the public.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Sep ’07
A healthy dose of skepticism
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, there is hope that the phenomenal performance of the economy will finally make Israelis realize the crucial role it plays in their lives.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Aug ’07
How to grow Israeli hi-tech
At the recent Merage Foundation conference to help Israel’s hi-tech sector grow, calls were heard for more government “direction”. This despite sixty years of massive government intervention and “development efforts” that have led mostly to massive failures and waste.
The Jerusalem Post
18 Jul ’07
A president of visions
President Shimon Peres, we all know, is a man of visions. Some have been better than others. The less successful ones, that translated into costly, failing and even dangerous policies, were those that denied reality.