Journal Media and Communication Studies Vol. 2(2). pp. 029-038, February, 2010 Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jmcs © 2010 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper 2006 elections in Israel: Marking the end of an era for the controlled televised election campaign broadcast Yuval Karniel and Amit Lavie-Dinur* Sammy Ofer School of Communications, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P. O. Box 167 Herzliya 46150, Israel. Accepted 15 December, 2009 This article examines the influence of the new ratings culture and multi-channelled reality on the 2006 Knesset elections in Israel. Prior to 2006, the tightly controlled one hour prime time campaign commercial on major television stations was one of the most important factors in Israeli national elections, if not the most important one. The 2006 campaign demonstrated that these commercials no longer have this effect. The increase in talk shows, varied programming during non prime time hours and informal interview styles has made the campaign commercials obsolete. Key words: Israel, elections, propaganda, television broadcasts, law, campaign commercial. INTRODUCTION Until the 2006 Knesset elections the Elections Law commercial an all powerful tool. Today, the law has been (Propaganda1 Methods) of 1959 governed campaign relaxed, allowing candidates to appear on television but management in Israel2. Until 1999, the Elections Law not for propaganda purposes.4 prohibited political candidates from appearing on televi- The election campaign laws were originally to ensure sion 30 days prior to Knesset elections Knesset3. The equality among the contending parties, a basic principle only televised forum on which prime minister, cabinet and in any democratic elections. Each party is allocated time Knesset members were allowed to appear was the official to air their campaign commercials during primetime election campaign broadcast, thereby making the election public TV. Slots are allocated in accordance with parties' relative representation in the outgoing Knesset. The parties bear sole responsibility for the content of the *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: 972 9 broadcasts. In the past, issues around this official broad- 952646. Fax: 972 9 9527650. casting allocation caused serious conflict among the parties to the point of requiring Supreme Court interven- 5 1 tion. In an important ruling, the Supreme Court The term "election propaganda" is a literal translation of the Hebrew as it appears in the Election Law of 1959 (paragraph 5); we henceforth refer to overturned a law which changed the allocation of airtime: this law as "the propaganda law". The basic airtime of each party was to have been slashed 2 "The "propaganda law" deals with the limitations placed on the lists in from 10 to 18 min and the airtime for each member terms of the propaganda they are allowed to publicize during the 60 days serving in the outgoing Knesset to be increased from 3 to prior to elections. The limitations include all types of promotions, 6 min. The Supreme Court decided that this law contra- including advertising and the use of public places. The law prohibits any type of advertisement on the television or radio for 60 days before the dicted the principle of essential equality among the elections EXCEPT for within the framework established by law parties to the advantage of the bigger parties. Even specifically for that purpose. These media carry very limited today, political parties are prohibited from buying any advertisements starting from 21 days before the elections at specified additional airtime on commercial television channels. times". as described and copied from the Knesset website - http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections16/eng/laws/summary_eng.htm) 3This led to several absurd situations such as the signing of the peace treaty between Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin. The actual handshaking ceremony could not be broadcast on public television 4 Article 5(a)2 of the Elections Law (Proganda Methods) 1959 provided during regular hours since the Prime Minister at the time, Menachem that "No screening or broadcasting shall be held of events in which Begin was running for office. The ceremony was only viewed on the candidates to the Knesset take part, for a period of 30 days prior to the official election broadcast for the Likud party as prescribed by law. elections". This law was amended in 1996 but did not become effective Another time, a candidate with a low chance of winning a seat was a until the 1999 elections. soccer player: the games in which he appeared could not be shown on 5 High Court of Justice 246/81 Derekh Eretz Association v. Broadcast television as they would be violating the law. Authority P.D. 35 (4) 1. 030 J. Media Commun. Stud. The prohibition on candidates' appearances on televi- standing on how well they did in interviews more than on sion is intended to maintain the principle of equality and their political abilities (this may even have been a factor prevent the leading party from exploiting its privileged in why none of them managed to complete a full, four- access to the media. This law was enacted at a time year term during this period). Then there is the celebrity when the state-run public broadcasting network enjoyed phenomenon, also originating in the US, which has been a monopoly and was meant to prevent the government on the increase in the world of entertainment but has also from using its power to turn the public channel into its left its marks on politics, including recent Israeli election own propaganda tool. The law remained in effect even campaigns. And in addition there is the impact of US after the public channel became just another channel in a style campaign management and marketing methods multi-channel environment. Formal campaigning through which favor media "spins" and accentuate the visual the election campaign broadcasts was, for a long time, aspect over the verbal message, going for image in favor the only method of public advertising for candidates and of content. their parties. Only in 1996 this law was amended and This article posits that election campaign broadcasts today's political candidates are permitted to appear on are an archaic format that was suited to a country with a television programs of all genres prior to an election. The single public channel, whose task, among others things, prohibition against "election advertising", however, was to serve the public and democratically enable each remains in force - that is, candidates may appear on all party to present its positions according to its relative size. types of television programs but are forbidden to This format jars with a multi-channel reality and comer- campaign during them. cial entertainment programming, which garners higher The Election Law still includes many restrictions viewer ratings than any other type of broadcast. concerning the permitted means content and message (Rubinstein and Medina, 2006). As a result, Israelis are currently exposed to both formal and informal campaign- ELECTION PROPAGANDA: THEORETICAL ing: the former takes the shape of the traditional BACKGROUND campaign broadcasts while the latter is constituted by implied campaigning - unlawful but extremely effective Election propaganda is way for the public to get to know and essential - such as on current affairs and candidates, parties, platforms and differences between entertainment programs. the various contenders. For the voters, media coverage is This article examines the influence of the new ratings the most significant source of information about the culture and multiple channeled realities on Israel's most election campaign as well as of comment and analysis. recent elections. The campaign style of the 2006 Another major source comes in the form of election elections significantly differed from that of past elections propaganda and propaganda broadcasts. These broad- in that the traditional campaign commercials had far less casts are likely to raise the public's involvement in the public impact. While prior to 2006 the designated one election process, create public interest and offer a public hour prime-time election broadcast on major channels stage for various issues. In the past, the fact that such a was arguably the most important factor in election large part of the viewers were exposed to these election campaigns, 2006 saw the emergence of a new election broadcasts even raised the voting percentage (Weiman reality. The prohibition against broadcasting election and Wolfsfeld, 2002). commercials during non primetime hours has in fact In spite of changes over time in form and content, the become obsolete and this article contends that the law pre-election propaganda period was the main time for should be amended to permit a more open television politicians to woo the public. The change in recent years campaign schedule; a new format for the management of has been from election propaganda to political advert- future campaigns in Israel, moreover, seems to be ising - and the latter involves political advisers and required. pollsters. It is hard to tell whether it is the changes in Features typical of the U.S. trickled through into Israel's electoral system that caused the accelerated America- 2006 elections, on several levels: first, there was a nization of the electoral campaign or vice versa. The change in the electoral system, leading to direct elections increasingly personal dimension of the election campaign in 1996, 1999 and 2001. This change led to the does run parallel to changes in the electoral system - but "personalization" of the campaigns: party leaders became we could also see this as part of a universal tendency the focus of attention. Even though the electoral method towards standardization of electoral systems across was subsequently reversed to the older model, this cultures (Caspi and Leshem, 2007). change in style persisted into the 2003 and 2006 election campaigns. Now the party platforms took second place to End of high cost television campaign advertisements party leaders' personality, their lives and lifestyles.