Privatizing public broadcasting, turning the watchdog into a lapdog - opinion

Earlier this month, the Knesset passed a preliminary reading of a bill to privatize the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, KAN. This proposal is not merely a technical or administrative matter but a significant move that endangers two fundamental principles of a democratic society: the public’s right to diverse and reliable information and the existence of independent journalism free from political or commercial interests.

One of the government’s claims for shutting down KAN is that it does not represent the entire public. However, KAN is a prime example of high-quality public broadcasting representing and serving various audiences within Israeli society.

Arabic speakers have Makan, which provides news, culture, and entertainment in their language; new immigrants benefit from Radio REKA, offering information that helps them integrate; KAN Moreshet delivers content focused on Jewish tradition, culture, and Torah studies for religious, traditional, and secular audiences; and children and parents enjoy KAN Educational, which sets new standards for quality children’s programming.

The importance of public broadcasting extends beyond offering representation to diverse groups. KAN is also one of the few journalistic institutions in Israel not subject to considerations of ratings, advertisers, or politicians.

Independent journalism

Thanks to its independence, it can produce journalism that challenges centers of power, provides critical coverage, and serves as a watchdog. The investigations, reports, and exposés by KAN journalists in recent months underscore the essential role of public broadcasting in safeguarding democracy.

In a country where the private media market is already highly concentrated, KAN acts as a crucial counterbalance, ensuring reliable information and balanced public discourse.

Commercial channels such as 12, 13, and 14 operate under economic and political considerations influencing their content. News studios on these channels often feature panel discussions and commentary rather than investigative journalism. Loud debates and a circus of opinions aim to attract ratings, stir interest, and please diverse audiences – including politicians across the spectrum.

The result is a discourse that avoids confronting real centers of power, making in-depth investigative journalism increasingly rare. On Channel 14, which is focused on promoting specific political agendas, content is often characterized by political propaganda and extreme rhetoric, sometimes including falsehoods and incitement.

While this vulgar display of opinions may strengthen particular audiences and generate ratings for its owner, it distances the channel from its role as an independent journalistic entity that challenges power and provides balanced information to the public.

Moreover, commercial channel owners often have economic interests that lead them to avoid covering topics that might inconvenience them. For instance, ownership of polluting factories, financial corporations, or commercial industries may affect how and to what extent environmental, social, or economic issues relevant to those interests are covered. Public broadcasting offers a vital alternative to these dynamics.

When public broadcasting loses its independence, as has happened in Hungary, Turkey, and Poland, it becomes a propaganda tool serving the government and its leaders. In these countries, access to objective information has almost disappeared, causing deep and often irreparable harm to democracy.

In contrast, countries like Britain and Germany demonstrate the contribution of strong, independent public broadcasting to ensuring rich, pluralistic, and reliable public discourse.

Interestingly, the slogan “What is good for Europe is good for Israel” is valid only when it comes to economic reforms, such as those proposed by the Economy Ministry in import regulations, but not in preserving free media.

This past week, heads of schools, departments, and communication programs across all academic institutions in Israel published a statement opposing this move. As those who study communication systems and their impact, train the next generation of journalists, and teach students to consume information critically, we issue this warning:

Privatizing KAN is not just an unnecessary step but one that undermines the very foundations of a democratic society. Turning public broadcasting from a watchdog of democracy into the government’s lapdog is a dangerous move. This must not happen.

The writer is head of communication studies at The Open University of Israel.