There is something deep and fundamental that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opponents, particularly those who are shocked by the severity of the alleged crimes attributed to him, refuse to understand: When it comes to anything having to do with the media, Netanyahu is not perceived by his supporters as corrupt, nor will he be anytime soon.
In Case 2,000, Netanyahu allegedly tried to strike a deal with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes to soften the aggressive, anti-Netanyahu stance featured in the paper in return for Netanyahu using his influence to curtail the activities of Israel Hayom, Yedioth's chief rival. Case 4,000 involves similar accusations that Netanyahu made a deal with Shaul Elovitch, controlling shareholder of Israeli telecom corporation Bezeq, for positive coverage of the Netanyahu family in the Bezeq-owned Walla news website. In exchange, Netanyahu allegedly helped ease government regulations worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Bezeq.
The narrow narrative painting Netanyahu as a man obsessed with positive media coverage, driven to illicitly influence legislation or divert public funds to that end, is dwarfed when compared to the bigger story – the liberation of the public media sphere under Netanyahu's leadership.
This is a war of conflicting narratives, and Netanyahu is winning. Particularly because at this point, the evidence in his favor is more impressive than the evidence against him. Almost anyone who ever identified with the nationalist camp, in the past or in the present, can't deny the sense of emancipation that Netanyahu has introduced during his rule. It is so obvious that even the publisher of the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, Amos Shocken, has been heard saying to his rivals on the Right: Stop whining! You have Israel Hayom, Channel 20, Makor Rishon, Galey Israel, B'Sheva…
He would be right, in part, but someone ready to admit that "the media is not so left-wing anymore" must also accept the fact that for many in the nationalist camp, the feeling of liberation that stems from increasing rightist voices in the media is largely thanks to Netanyahu.
One must be a fool to believe the public is blind to this revolution. It is clear that the ridiculously monolithic media coverage during the 2005 Gaza Strip disengagement cannot and will not return.
Not only is Netanyahu entitled to a presumption of innocence, he actually deserves a lot of credit for tirelessly pursuing this profound change in the deeply rooted structure of Israeli media. His willingness to stand up and confront the private publishers as well as the public broadcasters, and go all the way, is worthy of admiration. This clearly explains the exaggerated emotional response and the obsessiveness toward Netanyahu within the media circles. It's not just Left versus Right, as many like to portray it. It is first and foremost a reaction by the media guild to the threat of reforms that will essentially strip them of their monopoly and undermine their hegemonic power, forcing them to share screen time or the microphone with new players.
This does not mean that there are no red lines. If convincing evidence is presented, both Shocken and Mozes will be shocked to see how fast the nationalist camp vomits out the corrupt. But as of today, almost everything they say about Netanyahu is seen by large groups of the public as unfounded. It is impossible to wage this war without getting one's hands dirty and too many people have too many reasons to sabotage the process, and, barring that, to just exact revenge. The premature declarations of victory simply serve to reinforce this impression.
Support for Netanyahu will apparently continue until court proceedings against him conclude. This support will apparently even increase as long as serious journalists permit themselves to ridicule Israel Hayom, and as long as the journalism establishment continues to ostracize right-wing journalists and use each typo as proof that they fail to meet the minimum requirements of their club.
For much of the public, maybe most, the piercing cries that journalistic freedom is under attack and democracy has collapsed are simply inconsistent with the unprecedented pluralism that they, as consumers, experience themselves. To them, the allegations against Netanyahu do not constitute corruption, but rather a revolution.
