Yesterday it was officially proven that the public lost one of the most important media events in the history of television in Israel, some would say the most important.
Nir Hefetz's testimony, for the plethora of graphic descriptions, flooded social media, news sites and radio - and the most powerful and important tool, live television, was absent from the event.
This time - not the fault of the "media".
The public in Israel is divided into two: those who follow the trial with the feeling that a legal injustice has been done to a popular leader from the right, and those for whom the very filing of indictments is sufficient for conviction and overthrow of power.
For both parties, broadcasting from the heart of the controversy is close to the testimony and conduct of the judges - paramount importance.
Until yesterday, the debate over whether television cameras should be allowed to enter the courtroom could still be conducted calmly at the political-academic level;
But the earthquake produced by the witness's graphic evidence at the inquest, reminiscent of docu-series about detention facilities for dangerous security detainees, told a disturbing and terrifying story of how he was mentally, financially and familially shaken to a state that actually admits: "I had to give a version."
Just imagine the special broadcast day, where the state witness and a citizen of Israel repeats the threats leveled at him;
The court records go in and out to report;
The team of legal commentators who had to respond live to things.
The paramount importance of conveying the important nodes in the trial also stems from a difficult feeling among large sections of the public, that the truth is not mediated as it is - the court writings hardly hide their standing alongside the prosecution's position.
Hefetz's testimony, if broadcast live, or even filmed and broadcast in publications - would do a double service to questions of public interest: Were the police, prosecutors and attorney general allowed to break the law, to file an indictment at any cost against an incumbent prime minister?
If in the trial of the senior personality in the country such offenses are committed against the law, what do the authorities allow themselves to do when it comes to the ordinary citizen?
Netanyahu again asked for the introduction of cameras, and the channels themselves also approached the court administration - but all were refused.
Therefore the question arises: who has an interest in sabotaging the public interest?
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us