Channel 10 officers say that the station is in danger of closing, following today's decision by the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee not to reschedule its debts to the state. This ritual has been repeated every few years. The station owes, the government demands what it is owed, and pulls out its doomsday weapon, "Freedom of Speech". When Channel 10 was not yet in existence, was there any problem with freedom of speech in Israel?
Channel 10 has added a new mantra in recent years: it's all Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fault. He has targeted the station for closure, because of its investigative reports that hurt and insulted him. The cry, "Bibi wants to close the station!" is very effective, even more than crying freedom of speech. It definitely works on the public, at least the public that does not examine the facts.
Where's the beef?
When I hear any charge against a person, I ask, "Where's the beef?" even when that person is Netanyahu. In other words, show me the proof, especially when the charge sounds like an excuse not to pay a debt that is owed to Israel's citizens.
I went to look for the proof. I read, I asked, I spoke with top Channel 10 executives. They told me that they have never made such a claim, and that the charge is being leveled by people at the Prime Minister's Office.
But I, like any child, like the boy in the story of the emperor's new clothes, insist: who says it? What is his job? How do I know that this person knows what he is talking about? Maybe it is only gossip-mongers and Netanyahu-haters? Maybe they have some to see, to read, to smell? Nothing. It's all hunches, rumors, people "saying". This, ladies and gentlemen, is not beef - it isn't even bones. It's almost nothing. It definitely isn't someone who can back up the accusation that Netanyahu wants to collect what he is owed to him, and us, out of personal motives.
Where is the relevance?
Moreover, even if it were true, so what? The only relevant fact is that is that Channel 10 owes NIS 45 million, and that this debt should be repaid. It is exactly the argument made by Channel 10's correspondents and commentators about other peoples' debts. So why should it be any different for Channel 10? After all, they are doing what they are condemning Netanyahu and others for doing - promising to pay, and when the day comes to cash the note, they ignore it and put the blame on the debt-holders.
In any event, I deny the argument that Channel 10 will close if it is forced to repay its debt. This is an argument intended to mislead the public. What will probably happen is that other wealthy men will buy the station. And this might be the right thing to do, because it is already clear that its present owners cannot rehabilitate the station. In any other business, the horse would have been put down long ago.
P.S.
I very much doubt that Channel 10 will receive a debt rescheduling. Very soon, scores of journalists will descend on the Knesset and its members, who are well known for their ability to stand against people who have the ability to write about them (absolutely fairly, of course).
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on December 12, 2011
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2011