• culture

• TV

• direct watch

Anyone who did not want Netanyahu's board jokes with Shalom Asaig will get them from Yonit Levy

The decision of the chairman of the Election Commission to disqualify Netanyahu from appearing on "Stand-up Nation" is jarring, and there was no real need to prevent the public from watching a series of mediocre and reasonable reprisals. By far

Tags

• Benjamin Netanyahu

• Hello Asaig

• Little Schwartz

• Central Election Commission

• Uzi Vogelman

Nadav Menuhin

Wednesday, 03 March 2021, 06:58

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

Did anyone benefit from the disqualification?

Netanyahu and the "Stand-up Nation" team, from the segment that was not broadcast (Photo: screenshot, Network 13)

The chairman of the Central Election Commission, Judge Uzi Vogelman, decided in an extraordinary move to disqualify the broadcast of the segment with the participation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the "Stand-up Nation" program hosted by Shalom Asaig and Little Schwartz, which was scheduled to air yesterday.

According to the decision, the segment in question is propaganda that is prohibited from being broadcast in the period before the election.

Was it really a need, a taste or a smell?

Did anyone benefit from this?

Publicly, it is difficult to answer in the affirmative.

It is not entirely clear what the chairman of the election committee is worried about: the jokes listed as examples in the decision are moderate and reasonable repression, almost in terms of Likud reactions from recent years, and completely above the belt - with messages that most can signify in the political system. Feather towards Gantz, and a degree of self-boasting - it still claims to be a standup - but is that enough to justify censoring a show on a commercial channel in 2021, when every day of broadcasts is full of superficial politics?

More on Walla!

The chairman of the election committee banned Net 13 from broadcasting Netanyahu on Standup Nation

To the full article

"Did not challenge Netanyahu"?

Not a matter for the Election Commission.

Asaig and Schwartz on a program that actually aired last night (Photo: Screenshot, Network 13)

According to the judge, these refinements "directly concern issues that are currently on the political agenda ... and also directly relate to the messages of the prime minister and the Likud."

According to him, "in the eyes of the elector explained these statements may affect the vote."

To me it sounds absurd: if a sentence like "you know how hard it is to get a refrigerator of vaccines and there is not one Ben & Jerry's there" is a propaganda message, then there is no point at all in hosting any senior politician in a humorous setting.

I wonder if there is indeed a reasonable voter that such a sentence might affect his vote, whatever his political position may be.

The convincing reason for the decision is actually not content but circumstantial: Network 13 said that they contacted a number of politicians and everyone refused, and in another attempt they contacted Netanyahu again to take part in the last filmed program of the season, knowing that no more programs would be filmed.

If more politicians had been given a stage in the program, it was argued, there might have been something more egalitarian about it.

Indeed, there is a point to a flaw in this, but again the question arises: is it enough to prevent a content entity from broadcasting a program?

In the most bizarre part of the decision, Judge Vogelman ruled that the type of humor on the episode was "entertainment" and not "satire," noting that panelists "did not challenge" Netanyahu with questions about his actions or positions (so there is no justification for broadcasting the segment other than propaganda).

These are interesting arguments, but completely belong to the field of public and media debate, while the Election Commission is not supposed to deal with them.

Asaig and Schwartz's right to bow to Netanyahu (if he did) - and criticism of this should appear within the boundaries of this section.

I address the Honorable Judge with an excited exclamation: Please, leave the TV review to the journalists.

Keep it easy as well as severe.

Chairman of the Central Election Commission, Judge Vogelman, 2019 (Photo: Berni Ardov)

In the end, the absurdity of the decision is that instead of that muddy and restrained "propaganda" that would hardly have had a significant effect, the decision to censor, the noise that follows - and the turn to come - may motivate voters and lead to a much more aggressive campaign.

In an attempt to prevent banned propaganda, this decision may fuel the Likud's campaign more than any plank joke.

To sum up, the chairman of the Election Commission, who admitted in his decision that this was a borderline decision, chose to keep it easy - but the mismatch between the content and the sanction is jarring. In the age of social networks, when the media can easily be bypassed and messages conveyed without mediation, one can only wonder whether This is an attempt to fight windmills. As for Netanyahu, there is nothing to worry about. He infuses this banal humor in much more blatant interviews and propaganda videos. This is the area between "ha ha ha" and "na na na": those who do not want Netanyahu's jokes at Shalom Asaig, will get them anyway from Yonit Levy.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments