‘Unclean motives’ alleged as Israel's broadcast shake-up advances
Legal challenges, expert warnings, and market fears converge around a sweeping communications reform that critics say threatens media independence and democratic safeguards.The Knesset’s approval of the Communications Bill (Broadcasts), 2025, in its first reading earlier this month has reignited one of the most divisive debates on Israel’s political and media landscape.Led by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, the bill passed by a narrow 54-47 margin after the coalition secured ultra-Orthodox support through a political trade-off that granted backing for the Arbitration Law they championed.Presented as a move to “return power to the consumer” and “end state interference,” the reform seeks to dissolve Israel’s existing broadcast regulators, establish a new Broadcast Communications Authority, and remove the structural separation between news companies and channel owners.Supporters describe the initiative as a long-overdue modernization of a rigid, outdated system that stifles competition. Critics argue it represents one of the most aggressive attempts in years to weaken institutional safeguards over the free press and tilt control of Israel’s media toward political power.A source close to Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi told The Media Line that the attorney general’s opposition to the bill “is unjustified,” adding that “the government followed the full and legitimate legislative process despite repeated attempts by legal advisers to block it.”Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi attends an emergency conference in the Knesset, in Jerusalem, December 4, 2024 (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)Experts warn Israel's media bill harms editorial integrityThat source said the ministry “acted according to the law and in full transparency,” insisting that “the attorney general’s role is advisory, not binding.” Officials in the Communications Ministry added that the reform “updates outdated regulations, enhances competition, and gives consumers more choice while keeping the media free of political interference.”Public materials from the ministry, distributed under the title “The Truth Behind the Fake,” frame the bill as a social and economic reform designed to lower household costs. According to the documents, the reform would eliminate the need for broadcast licenses, simplify entry into the market, and end what it calls “monopolistic control” by a handful of commercial networks.“This is not about politics,” one section reads. “It is about freeing the media and giving Israelis the right to pay only for the content they actually consume.”The official packet outlines a vision in which deregulation allows new players, including digital platforms, to compete under a single, uniform framework. The ministry argues that consumers overpay for channels and programs they do not watch, and that liberalization will “lower prices, encourage diverse voices, and bring power back to the public.”Yet democracy and media policy experts warn that behind the language of market reform lies a fundamental change in the balance between government and journalism.Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and head of its Democracy in the Digital Age Program, told The Media Line that “the reform does not abolish regulation.” She explained that while the new law removes licensing requirements, “it still requires registration with the regulator, which leaves a great deal of power in the hands of the state.”Shwartz Altshuler noted that, under the proposal, the state would continue to exert influence over who is allowed to broadcast and what obligations they must meet.“Competition without oversight can lead to two negative outcomes,” she said. “Either a proliferation of small, weak players with no professionalism and no ability to speak truth to power, or, because Israel’s market is small, a concentration of power among a few dominant actors, with no tools to restrain them.”One of the most controversial changes involves the removal of the structural separation between channel owners and news companies, a mechanism that has long shielded editorial teams from direct pressure by shareholders or political allies.“The explicit statement that there will no longer be any required separation between ownership and news is problematic and harmful,” Shwartz Altshuler said. “It will allow both wealthy owners and their political allies to directly influence the news.”She pointed out that such separation currently exists only for Channels 12 and 13, not for Channel 14 or major online outlets such as Ynet, which would now also fall under the reform’s scope. “The structural division had a major impact on Israel’s television market, but it is not the only way to safeguard editorial independence,” she said.“There are corporate governance mechanisms that can achieve this, for example, ensuring the independence of the news editor through a board subcommittee, but the bill does not include any of them.”In her analysis, the reform also rests on a flawed assumption that competition alone guarantees pluralism. “The tension between pluralism and journalistic quality exists in all democracies, and this bill does not resolve it,” she said.“It assumes that competition alone will solve every problem, but audiences cannot always distinguish between high- and low-quality journalism. Opening the market to unrestricted competition, without mechanisms to safeguard quality, may actually weaken the marketplace of ideas rather than protect it,” she explained.Beyond the regulatory debate, Shwartz Altshuler sees the motivations behind the reform as political rather than structural. “In my view, this bill has nothing to do with technological regulation,” she said.“The communications minister, and perhaps also the prime minister, have invested enormous energy and time in this legislation, energy that should have been devoted to laws on social networks, artificial intelligence, and cyber policy. Instead, what we see here is populism, revenge against the media, and an attempt to bring it to its knees.”She cited the ministry’s own rhetoric and a series of procedural irregularities as evidence of what she called “unclean motives.”“The minister’s statements that the law is meant as revenge against the media, the violation of every accepted legislative norm in Israel, including the lack of approval from the attorney general and the passage of the bill with the votes of ultra-Orthodox MKs who do not even watch television."She added, "The absence of authorization from the regulatory authority, and the creation of a special Knesset committee against the advice of the Knesset’s legal counsel, all demonstrate that the intentions here are far from genuine.”Concerns have also emerged from the business sector. Dr. Ron Tomer, president of the Manufacturers Association of Israel, warned that the reform risks destabilizing the broadcast and advertising markets.In a letter to Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana and coalition chair Ofir Katz, he argued that the proposal “creates regulation instead of competition,” replacing efficiency with bureaucracy and granting the new authority economic powers so broad that they could undermine market certainty.Tomer cautioned that intervention in commercial agreements, overlapping jurisdiction with the Competition Authority, and unprecedented financial sanctions could weaken Israel’s media economy and deter investment.He also criticized government attempts to influence ratings measurement, warning that advertisers “must rely on independent, accurate and widely trusted data” and would reject state-driven alternatives.The legislative debate is taking place in a wider climate of hostility against the press. Earlier this week, Channel 13 filed a police complaint after its Tel Aviv headquarters was vandalized with graffiti reading “the blood of traitors will be made public.”Police also arrested a suspect accused of threatening presenters on Channel 14, and a senior journalist from Channel 12 was recently assigned security protection after receiving repeated threats linked to investigative reporting.While unrelated to the legal content of the reform, these incidents have heightened anxieties among journalists and raised broader questions about the pressures facing Israeli media at a moment of deep political polarization.Legal experts and journalists’ organizations have echoed concerns about the legislative process. Two petitions have already been filed with the High Court, one by the Hatzlaha NGO (known in English as The Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society), and another by the Journalists’ Association, claiming that the government’s decision to proceed without the attorney general’s approval constitutes a breach of legislative norms.The petitions ask the court to freeze the bill’s advancement until proper legal review is completed.The political backdrop has only intensified the sense of confrontation. The conflict between Minister Karhi and Likud MK David Bitan, chair of the Economy Committee, has left the coalition divided over which Knesset committee should debate the next phase of the bill.Karhi reportedly wants the legislation transferred to a special committee under his ministry’s influence, bypassing Bitan’s panel, a move critics see as another attempt to evade oversight.For the government, the reform remains a symbol of its drive to challenge what it calls Israel’s “media elites.” In public statements and campaign-style brochures, the ministry portrays the law as a victory for competition and consumer choice. One government poster declares, “The power returns to the people.”As the legislation moves forward, Israel’s fragile coalition faces mounting legal, political, and public scrutiny. The High Court is expected to review the petitions later this month, while opposition parties promise to fight the bill in committee.For many observers, the outcome will signal not only the future of Israel’s broadcast landscape but also the boundaries of governmental power in the country’s democracy.Whether the current package of broadcasting reforms becomes a milestone of deregulation or a turning point in the erosion of media independence may depend less on market competition than on political restraint, and on whether Israel’s institutions can still hold the line between freedom and control.
