THE ENEMY WITHIN: The Effect of “Private Censorship” on Press Freedom and How to Confront It—An Israeli Perspective by Moshe Negbi The Joan Shorenstein Center I PRESS POLITICS Discussion Paper D-35 November 1998 IIPUBLIC POLICY Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Copyright© 1998, President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone (617) 495-8269 • Fax: (617) 495-8696 Web Site Address: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/~presspol/home.htm INTRODUCTION The Israeli press is one of the most vigorous, that goes on in America, too, after more than complex and diverse in the world. It has its ori- 200 years of experimentation with freedom. One gins in a rich cultural and historic mixture. answer may be governments that provide more Among the elements are an almost genetic urge information and withhold the spin. to get at the truth, a democratic setting that is There probably is no way though, to slow unique in an authoritarian neighborhood, and the concentration of the media in fewer and plain old stubbornness and disregard for authority. fewer hands, in both countries. The rapid disap- The mythic story of Jewish scholars assem- pearance of distinctly separate radio networks in bled to define what it means to be Jewish comes America poses a particular risk. to mind. To be Jewish, the moderator observed Israel has abandoned, probably forever, its thoughtfully, means to object. Quickly a hand socialist tradition and there are big bucks to be shot up. “I object,” the dissident declared. made in journalism properties. Newspapers con- It is no wonder, then, that Israeli journal- trolled by political parties or by benevolent own- ists would rebel against censorship, by the gov- ers are also a thing of the past. ernment, commercial interests and even their These trends are not conducive to press own owners. Moshe Negbi, richly experienced in freedom, especially not to the kind of investiga- print and television journalism, writes of all tive journalism that seeks to pry information forms of censorship with authority: The censor- from uptight bureaucrats or plutocrats. ship of Arab war preparations before the Yom And Israeli courts have been sympathetic to Kippur war of 1973 by a government fearful of the self-censorship of newspaper owners even demoralizing the public; a leading newspaper’s while cutting down government censors. A rich retraction of a series of articles about irregulari- owner in Israel can pretty much have his own way ties in a large corporation. in the pages of his newspaper. Editors and writers Israeli journalists, for the most part, are can and will quit in protest, as in America, but it dedicated to uncovering the truth and passing on is not difficult to find replacements. the information to their viewers and readers. A Happily, editorial pages seem to be bucking landmark Supreme Court decision has limited the trend toward concentration. Diversity of what the government can censor to material views is as rich as ever, again possibly a reflec- whose publication probably would imperil tion of a tradition that predates Herzl and Ben- national security or public order. Gurion by centuries. This may not seem all that progressive to Of course, Israel has a special problem: it an American First Amendment junkie, honed on lives in a dangerous neighborhood among ene- the views of Justices William O. Douglas and mies who would seek to destroy it either by Hugo L. Black. But Israel has no First Amend- means of terrorism or traditional warfare. The ment, and most of its neighbors have only a nod- question is whether security is better served by ding acquaintance with free speech. keeping information from the people or by keep- David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister, ing the public informed. Wouldn’t Israel have once contemptuously dismissed a newspaper’s been better off if self-censoring editors had not criticism: “What is a newspaper anyway? killed stories warning of massive Arab buildups Somebody with money establishes a business, at the nation’s borders in the days before the hires servants and they write whatever he 1973 war? Certainly, the Israeli government directs them to write.” Yitzhak Rabin, accusing knew about the buildups. And so, of course, did editors of sensationalizing terrorist attacks, the Arab governments who were about to strike. remarked: “They do what sells papers.” Only the Israeli people were kept in the dark. Well not really. The press practices that As Moshe Negbi explains, sometimes cen- have developed over only 50 years are quite sorship can take strange twists. He relates how remarkable in their assertion of independence, the Israeli media in 1985 collectively decided to not only from censorship but from a government self-censor a Cabinet decision to release 1,150 or otherwise official line. terrorists in exchange for the return of 6 Israeli Unfortunately, this zeal, when combined soldiers who had been abducted in Lebanon. with an acute sense of competition, sometimes The military censor did not object to informing produces erratic and inaccurate news accounts. the public, Negbi recalls. In fact, the Army There is too much gotcha journalism. But all wished the story would come out in the hope a Moshe Negbi 1 public outcry would compel the Cabinet to Avi Pazner to Ruth Yaron to Gadi Baltiansky reverse itself. and all the others who held the difficult job, A word or two should be said, also, in there has been a consistent practice of telling praise of Israel’s press officers. My own experi- the truth even if the truth may be embarrassing. ence largely has been limited to the diplomatic And without the spin many American publicists beat. But over a quarter-century of dealing with try to place on a story. the Embassy as AP’s State Department corre- spondent I have been extremely impressed with Barry Schweid their honesty and particularly with their not State Department Chief Correspondent trying to cast events in a favorable light. From Associated Press 2 The Enemy Within THE ENEMY WITHIN: The Effect of “Private Censorship” on Press Freedom and How to Confront It—An Israeli Perspective by Moshe Negbi “What is a newspaper anyway? Somebody with money Their motivation for censoring may differ, but establishes a business, hires servants and they write the impact may be as harmful as the impact of whatever he tells them to write.” state censorship. As American legal scholar A. J. —Prime-Minister David Ben-Gurion in parliament, Barron has observed: “Increasingly private cen- April 1951 sorship serves to suppress ideas as thoroughly and as rigidly as the worst government censor” “The commercialization of the media has become a (Barron 1973:321). A similar sentiment was major factor in depicting events, especially in Israel [..] voiced on the other side of the ocean by the They do what sells papers.” great British jurist Lord Radcliffe: “A man may —Prime-Minister Yitzhak Rabin in an interview glitter with new and valuable ideas or burn with with Marvin Kalb, March 1995 wise thoughts [ . ] but if he is to communicate them [ . ] he has to render them acceptable to the real licensers of thoughts today [ . ] the “There are those who make a living out of information publishers” (Radcliffe 1968: 162). they publish, and there are those who make a living out Some may object to the use of the term of information they do not publish.” “censorship” in this context. For them this —Justice Mishael Cheshin, in a term means a complete brutal suppression of Supreme Court Judgment, August 1996 dissenting voices coupled with severe punish- ment entailing loss of liberty and even life for Introduction: The Nature and Hazards of the dissenter. It is true that this brutal type of “Private Censorship” censorship is applied by governments only, since governments usually enjoy a monopoly Traditionally the struggle for press freedom over using and applying such forceful sanctions. has been waged against the state. Publishers, edi- It is also true that it is the more inhumane type tors, and journalists alike have fought to pre- of censorship. But let me submit that this is not vent, modify or abolish legislation which gave the only type. Freud has observed there is pro- the government power to censor publications. found moral difference between burning dis- However in well-established democracies where senters or “just” burning their books, but in reasonable safeguards for protecting the press both cases those dissenters are censored (Jansen from official intervention were achieved, it has 1991: 20). If you assume that Freedom of Speech become evident that the state is not the only means not only the ability to speak but the abil- menace threatening the uninhibited flow of ity to communicate—not only to utter a dis- information and ideas to the public. Sometimes senting voice but also to make it heard by the state is not even the major menace. It seems others—then reducing it to an inaudible whisper that the all-powerful censors in such advanced can be fairly termed “censorship.” And in our democracies are no longer politicians or govern- era when you deny a dissenting voice access to ment officials but rather the “enemies within”— the mass media—you practically reduce it to an the people who own the media and consequently inaudible whisper. Indeed private persons or enjoy tremendous power to control its editorial organizations cannot stop people from uttering contents and the access to it. These people may information or ideas, but they can certainly use their power to censor both information and reduce the audibility of their utterances to a opinion, which are not to their liking or which degree that renders them insignificant.