On Thursday (10/06/2016), an item was reported in a number of media organizations stating that the Communications Ministry had decided to cancel its support for Social TV because it "undermines the foundations of the state and provides a platform to delegitimize the Israeli soldiers." The decision came after the movement "Reservists on the Front” turned their attention to reports produced by Social TV including its coverage of the women’s flotilla to Gaza.
First, it is hoped that the decisions made by the General Director of the Communications Ministry and his staff was made after a thorough examination of the matter and the relevant procedures, rules and regulations, and not by pressure from political parties. If indeed this is his decision (which of course has no validity because it was taken without proper proceedings,) it can certainly be seen as another trial balloon aimed to please an audience sympathetic to statements of the likes of Miri Regev and other members of the Netanyahu government.
Social TV is eligible for Communications Ministry support by virtue of it being a community broadcasting organization aired on cable Channel 98 and by satellite. Social TV meets all the criteria for support which, of course, is not contingent on the number of reports liked or not liked by viewers or government officials.
Attempts by the Communications Ministry to silence and intimidate critics by withholding budgets (which appears to be the prevailing sentiment among the general public,) will not succeed. Social TV will not acquiesce to attempts of intimidation and silencing. If there are reports that may incite or break the law, it would behoove the Director General of the Communications Ministry to point them out and please explain what's wrong with them. At the same time, the Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcasting controls content via channel 98 and can apparently censure broadcasters for showing inflammatory content.
More to the point, Social TV extensively covered the women’s flotilla that departed from Barcelona to Gaza. The possibility of covering the flotilla succeeded when a volunteer from Social TV participated in the flotilla itself. She photographed and reported the first leg of the journey from Barcelona to Sicily. Many Israeli journalists queued up to get access, including a correspondent for Channel 2 but, at the last minute, due to the capsizing of one of the boats, the number of women participating in the flotilla was reduced by half. The inclusion of a Social TV reporter on the flotilla is a first-rate journalistic achievement.
The claim that Social TV’s sympathetic coverage of the flotilla is "undermining the foundations of the state and provides a platform to delegitimize IDF soldiers" is simply outrageous. Especially egregious are those who claim that Social TV did not provide counter criticism of the flotilla to balance the story.
When the dominant voice in the media and in the public is the voice damning the flotilla and calling the women who participated “collaborators with terrorism,” Social TV brings another narrative – the narrative of the women who chose to take part in the flotilla and who aired their opinions on the Israeli government and the situation in Gaza.
Also the argument that reporting must be "balanced" is obsolete. This argument was perhaps suitable in an earlier time when Channel 1 was the only channel broadcasting in Israel, and it was the only way we received television news. Today however for every subject there is a variety of views, reports and commentaries coming from dozens of agencies with different agendas. Finally, we believe the viewer must form his or her opinion on this or that issue. Social TV was not intended to provide the "full picture" – there is no such thing. Even when we watch a cooking show, which seems to be the most innocent of programs, we are not shown the whole picture – we do not see the marketing content and the various underlying interests. And of course no one takes into account the opinions of animal rights organizations or the animal's suffering before becoming a juicy steak.
The role of Social TV is to supplement the picture that the viewer sees in the mainstream media and to present them with another aspect on issues and events and to allow viewers to form their own opinions, to challenge them and allow a lively discussion of views, attitudes, opinions while including groups that are not always fairly represented.
There is little doubt that the Communications Ministry and he who sits at its head (with a private newspaper at his disposal) has no intention of promoting critical content. Any attempt by his staff to silence and intimidate critical broadcasters will most likely be considered a worthy achievement and highly appreciated by the boss.
הוספת תגובה לכתבה