1.
We are all like blind men feeling an elephant, hugging its leg and thinking it's a pillar, stroking its belly and believing it's a wall, or imagining the trunk is a snake. Nietzsche described someone who reached some degree of "freedom of thought" as a nomad moving between different perspectives, and perhaps, if connecting them all, would arrive at a clearer concept of reality. These ideas throw us into questions of epistemology: what do we really know about reality, from Plato's "Cave Allegory" to "The Matrix."
These reflections echo within me when I need to form an opinion about an event based on its processed presentation in current media channels. Channel 14 and Channel 12, for example, represent two different universes, since their worldviews and basic assumptions for judging reality are different.
A blind person wanting to know what an elephant is would need many angles of touch. What happens if we limit their ability to encompass the sides of reality? For instance, we decide that someone wanting to publish a written newspaper can do so without problems; but someone wanting to establish a broadcast newspaper – radio or television – must overcome endless bureaucratic obstacles. Why?
2.
Why does the state supervise the way we consume news? How is the judgment of state-appointed officials better than our judgment? I was told they verify that false news isn't broadcast and also protect against commercial and political manipulations. In short, supervision of truth. Really?
We return to the opening question: what is truth? Generally, citizens are exposed to countless alternative channels, so why did the state decide to intervene specifically in electronic broadcasting? These are remnants of old socialism from the early days of the state, which was concerned with controlling how reality is mediated to citizens. The state wanted to determine what we know. Isn't it appropriate to abolish this?
Why do we give citizens driver's licenses when they could be licenses to kill? We ensure they know the driving laws, and if they violate them, their licenses will be revoked. The same could be done in the media market: basic laws that must be followed during broadcasting, but not controlling the very ability to easily open television and radio channels.
3.
Another question regarding public broadcasting: I understand the importance of encouraging original creation and culture. The state can help greatly with this. But why does the state need to fund a news channel too? This is an anachronistic relic.
Let's assume that in an ideal world, the public broadcasting corporation would broadcast the absolute truth, and commercial broadcasting channels would examine themselves according to its standards. Even in such a case, we would question the very desire to supervise the citizen's knowledge. But in reality, the public news channel broadcasts one perspective among many, which doesn't fundamentally change how we understand reality.
About two months ago, I watched on the public broadcaster a chapter from Guy Rolnik's series on a topic at the core of public discussion in the last decade. It was an intellectual disgrace, like a pamphlet by a high school student in a youth movement who was asked to describe the competing youth movement he despises. They paid him a fortune for it. After watching the film, was our worldview enriched with materials we didn't know? No. Completely by chance, last week I was exposed to a film on exactly the same topic but with an opposite analysis (in my opinion more fair and professional, but that's just my opinion). And yet, it wasn't broadcast on the public channel, and still I was enriched with information I wasn't familiar with.
4.
It's time to remove the artificial restraints on knowledge consumption in Israeli media. The state should remove its hands from controlling the electronic means of mediating reality to citizens, exactly as with print media and the internet. So how is it that specifically David Bitan, an honorable Member of Knesset from Likud, who is committed to liberal economy and reducing government supervision of citizens' consumption, doesn't trust the citizen's judgment and blocks Minister Shlomo Karhi's media reform? We don't need a big brother in the media.
