By The Jerusalem Post (World News) | Created at 2024-11-24 14:05:05 | Updated at 2024-11-24 16:47:59
3 hours ago
Baharav-Miara's office warns that the communications minister's bill to privatize Kan could stifle media independence and shut down government criticism.
By ELIAV BREUER NOVEMBER 24, 2024 15:40
The broadcast offices and studios of the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, in Jerusalem January 31, 2023.
(photo credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)
The method and circumstances of a bill proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi (Likud) to privatize Israel’s Public Broadcasting Corporation raises “serious concern” that the bill’s real purpose is to shut down a media outlet that is critical of the government and create a “chilling effect” on other media outlets, the attorney-general’s office wrote in a letter to Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) on Sunday.
Levin is the chairman of the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, which sets the government’s positions on legislative proposals and decides which to support once they reach the Knesset. The bill proposal in question was scheduled to pass a vote in the committee on Sunday afternoon.
The aim of the bill is to privatize Israel’s Public Broadcasting Corporation, also known as “Kan”, by ending its public funding and transferring responsibility for operating its television and radio broadcasts to private owners within two years of the law being passed.
The bill stipulates that the corporation’s executive council will first have to present to the communications minister, the finance minister, and the governmental regulator of commercial broadcasting (the Second Authority for Television and Radio) a list of the corporation’s assets.
Stipulation of the bill
Under the bill, within a year of receiving the list, the Second Authority for Television and Radio will publish a tender to select a licensee for television broadcasts. Six months after that, the Second Authority for Television and Radio will announce its decision on the winner of the tender. If no winner is chosen, “the Public Broadcasting Corporation will cease to broadcast and will cease all activity connected to broadcasting within two years of this law coming into effect.”
As far as radio is concerned, under the bill, all of the Public Broadcasting Corporation’s radio broadcasts will cease within two years of the bill becoming law, apart from the broadcasts of the Reshet Bet station (mainly news and current affairs). Within a year of receiving the Public Broadcasting Corporation’s list of assets, the Second Authority for Television and Radio will publish a tender for a national radio broadcasting licensee for that radio station. The bill states that the licensee will be allowed to broadcast advertising, sponsorships, and public service announcements.
The preamble to the bill states that “the Public Broadcasting Corporation’s budget comprises two sources: a government budget fixed by law and linked to the Consumer Price Index; and a budget based on collecting a vehicle radio fee. This budget amounts to NIS 800 million. This is a very high sum, and even those who believe in the importance of public broadcasting are taken aback by its size.”
The preamble also states that in an age of multi-channel television and widely accessible Internet, “the claim that public broadcasting is needed in order to provide a response to the multiculturalism that exists in Israel is no longer relevant.”
The attorney-general’s office countered in its letter, written by Deputy Attorney-Generals Avital Sompolinski and Meir Levin, that even before getting into the issue of public broadcasting itself, the proposal included severe procedural deficiencies. First and foremost, the bill was brought forward “hastily” without sufficient professional analysis and staff work. The bill would create a “major shift” in Israel’s media landscape, and therefore such professional staff work was critical, Sompolinski and Levin wrote. It pointed out that past government decisions regarding public broadcasting were based on professional committees whose work lasted for months.
In addition, the bill proposal came in the form of a private bill sponsored by Likud MK Tally Gotliv. A bill of this magnitude should only be proposed as a government bill, the AG’s office wrote. Private bills were “not intended to be used as a toll in the hands of a minister to circumvent the professionals in his office or other government officials,” Sompolinski and Levin wrote.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
The bill proposal “joins a series of proposals being advanced at this time that threaten the corporation’s [Kan’s] independence and ability to fulfill its public roles,” the deputy AGs added.
While they did not detail what other proposals they were referring to, one of them was likely another recent private bill proposal, this time by MK Avichai Boaron (Likud), to subject the Public Broadcasting Corporation’s funding to the state budget, so that it could be cut in line with general cuts to public spending during the war.
Sompolinski and Levin continued, “In light of these circumstances, there is a serious concern that the proposal is also motivated by the desire to stop the corporation’s broadcasts due to the content it airs. Even if the various steps do not come to fruition, each one on its own, and certainly when accumulated, creates a significant and severe chilling effect on the corporation and other media bodies in Israel.”
“The message from these actions is clear and serious: criticism of the government or broadcasting content that does not favor the government may lead to measures against media bodies and their restriction. This consideration also carries significant weight in the legal examination, and the concern is heightened by the manner in which the proposal is being promoted—not within the framework of governmental work, without proper groundwork, and ignoring the professional work of committees that have deliberated on the matter,” they wrote.
“For all the aforementioned reasons, with the consent of the Attorney-General, our position is that the proposed law cannot be advanced due to the most fundamental procedural flaws inherent in it. Therefore, it cannot be determined at this time that the proposed law meets the required legal standards,” Sompolinski and Levin concluded.
NEVO TRABELSY/Globes/TNS contributed to this article
