A few months ago, the counter-terrorism department at the National Security Council drafted a shocking report on dangers at the Pi Glilot fuel depot, particularly the horrifying effects that could result from a terrorist bombing there. The document reached the hands of Channel Two reporter Haim Rivlin, who produced a detailed report based on the NSC findings. Everything was ready for broadcast, but then the military censor spiked the entire item. Not a word or single image was allowed to be shown.
Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai believed the only way to stir a public debate on the issue and push those responsible to take action would be a media campaign exposing the NSC report. He decided to pave the way for the press to the subject by taking a bypass road, sending a vehement letter, based on the report, to the prime minister and warning of the dangers faced by residents of Tel Aviv and its environs. The letter was leaked to the press. But it was also scotched by the censor, with senior officials in the Israel Defense Forces Censor's office explaining to the newspaper editors that "we don't have to give any ideas to the terrorists."
Last Thursday, after it turned out the terrorists weren't waiting for suggestions from the Israeli press, suddenly everything was allowed. Along with up to the minute reports from the scene of the terror attack that morning in Pi Glilot, Channel Two carried the full Rivlin report. The censor didn't object. The horses had already bolted, so who cared if the barn doors were open or closed?
It appears to have been a classic example in which narrow security considerations can cause harm - including life-endangering damage - when the short term is regarded as more important than the long term. A public debate, which forces the security services into energetic action, can sometimes prevent disaster better than many secrets that get shelved in the offices of the censor. Terrorists don't need investigative reports to know where to find Israel's Achilles' heels. But they do make use of the negligence and procrastination that infects Israeli bureaucracies to fulfill their goals.
Exposing flaws in the system, particularly fateful flaws, is sometimes the only way to get them fixed. It's too bad that the defense establishment refuses to understand this fact and treats the media as an enemy, to the satisfaction of the real one.
Fear of reporting
Many reporters from the electronic media have been talking lately about their anxiety when they have to go to the scene of a terrorist attack. The subject is sensitive, viewers at home and editors in the control room are on edge, and any verbal slip can ruin a career. "To broadcast as if you're walking on egg shells is something you can do once or twice," says a veteran radio reporter, "but when it becomes a daily matter, sensitivity quickly erodes."
Last Monday, the morning after the bombing in the Netanya market, Channel One journalist Rotem Avrutzky went to report from the scene. When he and his crew reached the market, they were surrounded by stall-owners and passersby who appeared surprisingly unaffected by the events of the day before. When the broadcast turned to "our reporter in the field," Avrutzky opened with the following words: "This morning, I have to say, the market looks very good. It is difficult to tell there was a terror attack only yesterday. There's happiness in the air, even joy, stall-keepers and vendors are coming to market, opening their shops; the vegetables look juicy and things feels like normal."
Rafik Halaby, head of the news department, was furious, while calls from equally angry viewers flooded the TV station. Halaby loudly reprimanded Avrutzky, and announced his suspension from field reporting for a few days. Even if Avrutzky's report was insensitive, the question remains: What's a reporter to do when describing a particular reality from the field, knowing that if he/she tells the truth, a lot of people won't be able to accept it.
What if there really was a sense of "joy" in the market that morning, because that's how the public deals with the routine of terror? Should the reporter ignore it and make sure his report fits the expectations of the viewers at home?
The suspension didn't last long. On Wednesday, after the Rishon Letzion bombing, Avrutzky, who lives in the Tel Aviv suburb, was back in the field, but filing his reports only by phone. Just before going back on the air, someone reminded him to be careful with what he said.
Going ballistic
As part of the IDF's preparations in case Israel once again becomes a target for ballistic missiles, the army is also taking into account the media battlefield. The IDF Spokesman's Office and the Home Front Command don't want a repeat of the hysteria that struck during the first hours of the Gulf War, when, for example, booms over Tel Aviv were reported to the nation huddled around the radios in their sealed rooms, as "thunder."
They also don't want to simply assume the emergence of a national figure like Nahman Shai, whose soft-spoken explanations on the radio and TV calmed millions of frightened people. No, this time, they don't want to leave anything to chance.
There won't be joint broadcasts between the IBA and Army Radio, like in 199l. The various channels will broadcast on their own, but a special studio at the Home Front Command will be opened, as needed. Channel One and Two will link to that studio and use its services as they see fit. The army will offer press conferences with officers and senior officials in the defense establishment, and special interviews with experts on various issues - biochemical warfare, for example - will be available for questions. Orly Vilnai-Federbush, the Channel One reporter, will be the anchor and interviewer. The Home Front has decided her persona will calm the audience.
The idea of lending a reporter to the army for emergency broadcasts seems understandable, under fire, but a number of Channel One newspeople raised an eyebrow when Rafik Halaby announced that henceforth, Vilnai would be responsible for coverage of Home Front Command issues. Security is divided among several reporters at Channel One - Gur Tzalalyachin is the military reporter, Ron Ben-Yishai is the commentator, and Amir Bar-Shalom helps out Tzalalyachin when there is fighting in more than one area. Now there's a fourth reporter.
The job description for a reporter covering the Home Front should include, for example, uncovering flaws in the command's preparations for an emergency. No matter how talented she may be, will Vilnai be able to do that kind of work when she is deeply involved in rehearsals and preparations for emergency broadcasts with the Home Front Command's officers and the IDF Spokesman?
Halaby is not worried. "Orly always wanted to be a military reporter. She studied the subject in the United States, and she has very little ongoing contact with the Home Front Command. I don't see it as a problem."
Channel Two, by the way, was surprised to hear who would be manning the emergency broadcast studio. Shalom Kital, CEO of Channel Two's News Company, says, "I'm not familiar with the subject." A senior source in the News Company says, "We intend, if and when, to use that studio to ask questions of the experts and take part in the press conferences. It would never occur to us to broadcast reports or interviews by the Channel One reporter."
On deaf ears
Reactions by the broadcasting industry to the bill proposing abatements for the deaf, reported here last week, were handed in to the Knesset House Committee late last week. Channel Two's News Company, the cable stations, the Channel Two franchise holders, Channel 10's owners were unenthusiastic and all raised reservations ranging from financial to technological. But they all went to the bother of providing detailed answers, prepared by their legal advisors, and appeared ready for compromise on a large number of the issues at stake.
All but one, that is - the Israel Broadcasting Authority, financed by compulsory licensing fees and supposedly mandated to care for all the population, summed up its response to the bill in one sentence, prepared by attorney Yanir Peleg from the IBA legal office: "The IBA's position is that the bill is impossible to implement."
Socratic dialogue
The intellectual halo around Channel One's late night news anchor, Immanuel Halperin, is about to grow even stronger: He's been chosen by art director Micky Gurevitz to play the part of Socrates in a play based on the Dialogues, at the Khan Theater in Jerusalem. Halperin has long acknowledged he's a frustrated actor and was delighted with the offer. Now he's waiting for permission from the IBA
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
