Galit Gutman on Keshet 12's morning show criticizes the ultra-Orthodox (Keshet 12)
In normal times, no one would make a fuss about Galit Gutman's statement, because we would recognize the right of every person, especially journalists and media professionals, to express their opinions freely. But Israel's volatile social reality in 2023 requires all of us to exercise caution, otherwise the shared boat may yet turn over on all of us.
Still, substantive matters are at stake. Once again, expert economists are warning of the consequences of another destructive reform, and once again the extremist government refuses to listen and acts unilaterally with all its might, trampling on the rights of the angry majority in favor of establishing the new Arnona fund, which was approved this morning by the Knesset bordering on communism.
In fact, it can be said that statements like Gutman's are the product of norms that were created long before her, those that sanctify every blunt statement and give it full media attention. Shouting and invective in the Knesset, libel and irrelevant statements concerning the personal lives of political opponents on the right and left, as well as expressions of racism, homophobia and misogynism by public figures, have become routine in Israel, and those who shout loudest are the ones who have the last word. So where is the statehood, you ask? Certainly not on TV.
After a massive attack on television channels, threats of dismissal and even an official condemnation of the prime minister accused of criminal offenses, Gutman announced: "I would like to apologize from the bottom of my heart if I hurt an entire sector. I love the State of Israel, and out of concern for its future, I strongly criticize the representatives of the ultra-Orthodox sector in the Knesset. The remarks were made during a discussion on the government budget and the Arnona fund. But I have no intention of harming the entire sector. I apologize to everyone who was offended by this."
"We regret this and apologize for the unnecessary offense. Gutman apologized for the wording of her remarks and for the inclusion of an entire sector and was summoned for urgent clarification by her managers." In that urgent inquiry, it was made clear to Gutman that such statements were unacceptable in any way in the broadcaster, and it was agreed that she would apologize for her remarks at the opening of the next program on Thursday.
So yes, "sucking our blood" is a harsh phrase, but was this whole storm really necessary? Isn't it appropriate for a TV presenter on a current affairs program to express her substantive opinion on air?
More in Walla!
It's so delicious and simple: recipe for caramelized bananas
In association with Galil
Israel plummets press freedom index
The State of Israel dropped 11 places in the Reporters-Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index for 2023, compared to its position in 2022, and came in 97th place out of 180 countries and territories.
The index, which summarizes the degree of freedom of the press around the world, notes that "the Israeli media has been undermined by the rise to power of a government that threatens freedom of the press."
According to Transparent, beyond the danger to freedom of the press brought on by Netanyahu's sixth government, the organization mentions the older dangers such as discrimination against Palestinian journalists, exceptional restrictions on military censorship and economic centralization. It also mentions Netanyahu's consistent tendency to try to influence the press through improper means, which led to the criminal charges in Case 2000 and Case 4000.
Gentlemen, history repeats
Galit Gutman is not the first TV presenter accused of expressing her personal opinion on air. Journalist Hadas Steif was suspended last November from broadcasting a terrorist attack on Galatzi after she said during the broadcast that "it is impossible to separate the event from the coalition negotiations and the desire to appoint a certain person to the position of managing a certain ministry." This insinuation, which could have been interpreted in all sorts of ways, cost Steif her career, and shortly thereafter she announced that she would retire from Army Radio within a year, after 34 years in the position. Rina Matzliach, Oshrat Kotler and many others were also criticized and slandered when they dared to present their independent opinions, on or off air.
General censorship or gender discrimination?
It is interesting to note that in all these cases these are women journalists. When a faculty colleague wrote 'mistakenly' that Oren Hazan had dealt drugs, instead of saying that he had used them, no one suspended him from his position – quite the opposite. He received his full backing and became one of Israel's most influential journalists.
In the few cases where male journalists have been suspended or removed from their positions, this has been justified. Journalist Erel Segal was suspended from his position for five days in 2020 after he filmed a video with Benjamin Netanyahu, in what the Kan Broadcasting Corporation claims could have been interpreted as election propaganda. DemocraTV, an independent news outlet considered liberal and progressive, fired journalist Israel Frey last November after he noted on Twitter that the terrorist who carried out an attack at the time chose to target "only soldiers" and not civilians.
Whether there is a gender bias against female journalists or an unfortunate coincidence, the violation of freedom of the press may still cost us dearly.
Have we become so sensitive that we are unable to contain opinions contrary to our own or to the narrative dictated from above?
Freedom of the press is a fundamental value of democracy, according to which government intervention in the press and mass media must be reduced and its independence from the government must be ensured, and the violation of the independence and freedom of media outlets or journalists is one of the hallmarks of dictatorial rule.
Recent history shows that leaders who gained control of the media shaped the narrative to suit their interests. This is exactly what Putin (in Russia), Erdogan (in Turkey), and Kaczynski (in Poland) did to manipulate public opinion and present themselves as the saviors of their country, paving the way for their rise to power as dictators. And yes, there is another one, whose name I will deliberately not mention.
Unlike many democratic countries, freedom of the press in Israel is not enshrined in legislation, and in the absence of a constitution, there is no Basic Law dedicated to protecting freedom of the press or freedom of expression. The only official protection Israel has is in rulings of the Supreme Court, whose authority is eroding.
By controlling the media, dictators can control the information their citizens receive. They can twist the truth to fit their agenda and silence dissenting voices, and most importantly, they can do whatever they want and accumulate skeletons in the closet that no one will dare ever reveal. These leaders may seem strong, but they are dying for fear that the truth will come out and they will do anything to suppress it.
In conclusion,
Freedom of the press is like oxygen for a healthy democratic society, because it allows for discussion in which every opinion has a place, even if some of us find it difficult to hear. Israeli society is in a deep identity crisis, and each side is fighting for its values. Silencing journalists will not solve the crisis, but will only deepen it, because without freedom of the press we will be left with a reservoir of propaganda, lies and biased or misleading information, and no one wants that.
Fortunately for Galit Gutman, she is old enough and popular with the public to lower her head for a moment, absorb the criticism and continue in her role, but for Israelis, this whole affair is an ominous sign.
- Marketing & Digital
- Headers
Tags
- Galit Gutman
- News 12
- Archer
- censorship
- Press
- freedom of speech
- Freedom of the Press
- democracy
