Yehiel Limor

A cross-cultural look at serving the public interest: American and Israeli journalists consider ethical scenarios

This study explores how the social dimensions of a reporter’s world shape ethical decisions through parallel surveys of daily newspaper reporters in Israel and one Midwestern US state. Through regression analysis, we found that personal factors (gender, years of education) were not related to ethical decisions nor were professional factors (professional experience, professional membership, having studied journalism). In contrast, the social context element (country of practice) was relevant for two of three ethical situations. We also found that personal, professional and social dimensions varied in their utility to ethical decision-making from situation to situation. Considering a reporter’s ethical predisposition, this study found that personal value systems may be more important for ethical decision-making than formal written codes. This study suggests that ethical foundations shared across nations can create cultural bridges – but that diverging ethical perspectives also may create journalistic barriers.

Media Institutions, News Organizations, and the Journalistic Social Role Worldwide: A Cross-National and Cross-Organizational Study of Codes of Ethics

Journalists and media organizations are often criticized by politicians, the public, and media scholars for not fulfilling their role in society. This study analyzed 242 codes of ethics in 94 countries to identify journalistic social role as perceived by media organizations. It identified and compared journalistic social roles toward society and toward loci of power, based on each countrys geopolitical characteristics and type of media organization. Findings indicated a rather consensual perception of journalistic role around the world and across media organizations: neutral, detached from society and defensive—but not adversary—toward the loci of power. Findings also highlighted the control media organizations have in shaping these roles.

The Military and the Media in the Twenty-First Century: Towards a New Model of Relations

During the 2003 war in Iraq, the manner in which the United States conducted relations with the media, proved surprising to many, but an examination of the Gulf War of 1991, as well as the war in Afghanistan, provides early evidence of the contemporary relationship between the military, the government and the media. These two wars essentially gave rise to a new pattern of military–media relations whose foundations were laid a decade or two earlier. The essence of the new model is one of warfare managed, and waged, far from the eyes of the media, essentially deactivating the latter’s ability to act freely. From a historical point of view, one can define the Deactivation Model as the third stage in military–media relations in the modern era. The first stage, defined as the Self-Mobilization Model, reached its peak in World War II and was characterized by an identity of interests, wherein the media voluntarily rallied to the aid of the military. The second stage, the Parallel Model that developed in the wake of the Vietnam War, embodied rivalry between the media and the military, similar to the media’s relations with political institutions or other organizations in society. Recognition of the growing power of the media and the related structural processes on global and local media maps made politicians and military personnel aware that media interests—especially those of international media conglomerates—are not necessarily identical to those of the state and society in which these entities operate. The present study examines key global changes in military–media relations during the twentieth century, focusing on the inapplicability of known models to the realities of military–media relations and wars in the twenty-first century. It maintains that these one-dimensional models, that were never entirely consistent or perfect, are no longer capable of theoretical or practical conceptualization of the reciprocal relations between the military and the media. Consequently, the Multidimensional

Sports: Faster, Higher, Stronger, and Public Relations

Abstract Sport in the modern age is both politics and business. In a combined world of politics, business, hatred, jealousy and boastfulness, in which each person aims to achieve his objective while “disregarding all the rules,” as Orwell describes, public relations are a valuable strategic and tactical weapon. Success is not measured on the sports field alone, but in the newspaper headlines, on the television and the computer screens and in the bank account. The motto once proposed by Baron Pierre de Coubertin-“Citius, Altius, Fortius” (faster, higher, stronger)-is slowly clearing the way for a new, more updated motto: “Faster, higher, stronger, bigger (business) and especially-more PR.”

The Israeli paradox: The military censorship as a protector of the freedom of the press

Although the state of Israel is a democracy, military censorship has been in use since its establishment in 1948 and is still imposed. The chapter analyzes the theoretical and practical grounds for military censorship in Israel based on an agreement between relevant parties: the government, the army, the media, and the public. Analysis of Israeli military censorship reveals that military censorship is not necessarily the enemy of the media and the publics right to know. On the contrary and paradoxically, we show that in Israels case, military censorship not only performs its task of preventing the publication of information that threatens the national security, at times it sustains the countrys freedom of the press, freedom of information, and the publics right to know.

The advertising industry as a dynamic environment: the Israeli case

ABSTRACT Despite its importance in modern daily life, the history of the advertising industry in Israel has elicited little scholarly interest. This article seeks to fill this lacuna by offering the first comprehensive survey of Israel’s advertising industry from its early beginning in 1863 to the present day, while identifying four distinct phases in this process (1863–1922; 1922–1960; 1960–1993; 1993 to the present). It also suggests a theoretical model of influencing factors and processes that shaped – structurally and functionally – the development of this industry.

Sportgulation: Courts as ‘deus ex machina’ in defining the ‘public interest’ in sport broadcasting – The case of Israel

In 2005, following an appeal to the High Court of Justice, secret financial agreements between the Israel Broadcasting Authority and Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team (a privately owned team that plays regularly in top European tournaments) were exposed. The documents revealed that the Israel Broadcasting Authority paid 26 million dollars in the previous six years for broadcasting Maccabi’s games, in addition to indirect payments related to sponsors. At the same year, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Israeli Broadcasting Authority to broadcast all games of the Israeli women’s basketball champion, as part of European tournaments, after the Authority refused to do so. Why was one team favored by the public broadcasting service while the other required court intervention? Who, then, defines the public interest in sport? Who enjoys being broadcast: only national teams in popular sport branches (football and basketball) or private teams as well? Is it ‘men only’ or women’s sport is also considered worthy to be broadcast? This study seeks to examine the pressures and interests regarding sport broadcasting and focus on the role of courts as a ‘deus ex machina’ in solving the competition between the public and private interests. Based on analysis of courts’ decisions and in-depth interviews with senior officials at the three regulatory organs, who regulate all Israeli TV outlets and channels, we draw a complicated web of economic, political, and legal interests and pressures. When no one wins the ‘pressure game,’ it comes to court, which has to decide and define what a ‘public interest’ is, and thus becomes, de facto, a fourth regulator of the TV in sport broadcasting. The decisions made concerning sport broadcasting rights in Israel offer a window in the wider question of how Israel defines the public interest in broadcasting.