The First Amendment; Zvi Dor-Ner

WGBH Boston in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic communications at the School of Communications with Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s and now here is the Director of the Institute for Democratic Communication, Dr. Bernard Rubin. The guest for this program is Zvi Dor-ner. Zvi Dor-ner has just arrived. After many years absence in the United States where he took a degree in journalism at Boston University back from Israel where he is one of the leading television producers among other things that Zvi Dor-Ner has done is the well known series carried on public television in this country the Arabs and the Israelis. He's presently a Neiman fellow at Harvard University on leave from the Israeli television system. Among his programs that are very popular in Israel is a program called the third hour which is a monthly presentation lasting two and a half

hours and each week they discuss a single subject such as drugs or feminism. And from what Zvi tells us it really is one that gets the conversation going in the cafes and homes of Israel. I'm very pleased to have as my co-host today John Wicklein the dean of the School of Public Communication at Boston University. I think I'm going to ask the first question, Zvi. And that is this wonderful program, The Arabs and the Israelis, which discusses ?things? from both sides of the fence. Talking to Arab leaders different countries and to Israeli people of prominence to see what solutions can come to what has been a long term conflict and concern for the whole world. This program was not broadcast in Israel. Perhaps you might comment a bit about the the security situation vis-a-vis what is allowed on Israeli television.

Now the program wasn't broadcast in Israel neither was it broadcast in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, nor in Egypt, and I personally feel very sorry for that. While I am not surprised that it wasn't broadcast in the Arab countries, I am very disappointed that it wasn't broadcast by Israel. Ah ... the reason for that are complex. Part of the reason at least is the kind of effort which the Israeli Broadcasting Authority tries ... ... makes in order to keep independence. And that means trying to attract as little ?flak? as possible. Eh, at a time when the program came up for consideration, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority and television especially, was attacked by different groups as being defeatist, leftist

people who stress the ? of the Israeli system. And ... I think the reason the ... the reason for the program wasn't broadcast was the fear that broadcasting such a program might increase, in fact, the attacks. I don't think it justified. I don't think it was an intelligent decision. But I think it's ... it's understandable. Permit me to say that having been one of the viewers of that extraordinarily fine series of programs that it was well done and certainly enlightened those of us who saw it here and thought it ... ah, I'm just throwing a compliment your way ... preeminently fair. And certainly a good example of American Israeli cooperation on production, and Arab, and Arab cooperation and production, John. Well I think this raises the question and I'm interested in and that is the setup of Israeli television that would imply to me that there are some strong

political considerations going in the Israeli system which I understand is set up along the formal lines of the BBC with some insulation between the government and the, ah, and the broadcaster, themselves, but how- But how does the political influences exert themselves on ... what can be said said and what can be broadcast on ... in the system? Yeah well it's ... it's ... in the formal sense we're operating very much like the BBC. But I suspect that our Board of Governors tends to be much more political than the BBC's Board of Governors. Essentially the Board of Governors ?so they really both within good? authority is a group of people who are politically appointed and to a large extent their responsibility to their respective parties or the respective groups that they represent. Rubin: Is there some kind of Is there some kind of formula of a percentage or quotas that certain party will get so many get so many representatives on the board? [Zvi] It's not a very accurate one and maybe I'm ... I'm making it very clear that it's a

political system - it's not declared as such, and so there are quotas, the quotas are not are not very accurate. They represent, er, fairly, I would say, the kind of kind of a public opinion with having these rights. [Host] Why then do you find that they ... they feel that they're under attack for a leftish, perhaps, view and th... ah, under attack for critical... being critical of the ... of the ... all things Israeli, or the government. How does that come around? Or do they have too much direct influence in programming? [Zvi Dor-Ner] No. The Board of Governors has no direct influence in programming and I think there is a kind of conflict, conflict which exists in many broadcasting organization between let's say th... the... what's supposed to be the policy supervising body and between the actual management. It's a common conflict between the... [Host] Yes it is. [Zvi Dor-Ner] creative people and and management and between what seems to serve as a

political overview. It's a healthy conflict. And it's a very legitimate one. Ah... I think the Israeli television comes under, under criticism because it's a very effective, and tends to be very free and very aggressive tool of other free thinking people. And I think the kind of, the kind of contradictions we have with different segments of the public, and with our own Board of Directors, to some extent reflect our ability to do things. And I think, Israel is really in a very unusual situation that we are trying to operate a free, democratic country, in a situation of war. And it raises problems. I think one of the thing that happens in such a situation is that the national consensus, or as the body

of accepted national opinion, tends to get narrower. You know, tends, there is a certain cohesiveness that the develops. And very often, I think we are broadcasting on the borders of this national, national consensus. Very often, we are, maybe we're trying, or at least I feel I try, to open it. To enlarge the national consensus. To include things which are not altogether popular. And I think the criticism still stems from that. Eh, altogether I'm I feel it's a very healthy situation. It's a kind of situation when, maybe, maybe before summing it up, I think it's also a demonstration of the impact that especially television has. It's the politician that criticize, the television for destroying the morale, is really worried about his own morale. I have no, I have no, no doubts that we don't

destroyed change, or affect the morale of the country but they know that the influence, we very much influence, the morale of the politicians are a figure, who is, who comes under criticism. [Host] Zvi, when we talk about Israeli television or Israeli events on this program, we're very much concerned about our own Bill of Rights and we're trying to assess what foreign developments mean to us and what our Bill of Rights means to other people. Now certainly in Israel you, you have a delicate situation. The security problem is always tremendous. And I was wondering, for example, reading an article in the summer 1975 issue of Journalism Quarterly by a graduate student at the University of Missouri named Munir Nassir, I would presume that would be an Arabic backgrounded person, American or otherwise. He says that Israel does permit a tremendous amount of freedom of the press, especially of the Arab press. But it does to to prove its, its own point through the Arab press.

What freedom do you? What problems of freedom do you run into with the Jewish citizens? For example, in this country we say Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a state religion. How difficult, and I'm not probing now for a problem, but how difficult is for you, is it for you on television, when for example you're dealing with a subject that you know that the very strictly religious Jewish population is very sensitive about? What kind of reactions do you have to go through? [Zvi Dor-Ner] Well, I, I do a number of things. First of all, we don't have a constitution. Which is a minor problem, I think, it's not, it's not a serious thing. We are operating again under the system, system which is similar to the British. We have the common law. We have the body, of, the body of Jewish religious law

affecting some aspects of the Israeli life. A body of Muslim law or Ottoman law affecting other aspects. We have a large mixture of of laws governing their life. I think the journal, as a journalist, you are limited in the former sense, only by one thing. And that's, that you're not publishing military information without the censor going over it. You have to submit military information to censorship. Full stop. That's it. That's that enough. [Host] Is that very loosely defined, or is it very tightly defined on what, what would be considered military information? [Zvi Dor-Ner] No it's a very tightly defined. Military means military. It's has no other connotation. If you are, if you are talking about units about officers, about military things, then, you know, you should, you should show it to the censor, of telling what you're doing and asking them whether it is right or wrong. Usually, usually

I never had a problem with it. The kind of limitation that the censor imposed on me whenever it happens, made perfect sense. And there is nothing. It's really not political. But we have political pressures, and political pressure can come in many different ways. I think, one of it is this consensus. You are very much aware of what's right and what's wrong. And I think many journalists, I hope I'm not among them, refrain from, you know, being on the border of it, or....[Host] (interrupts and talks over) or or just go check. Yes, but's that's so true in this country, in many instances, both in television and in newspapers, that there is no outright censorship of television or newspapers, but some writer or producer is looking over his own shoulder and is concerned about, if I say this how will it affect my career...... if I go against what I perceive

my management to want to have said in this regard. Or the government in the case of some public television and public radio producers. If they, they, have to worry about what's going to happen with the annual appropriation of the five year appropriation, if they, if they take an attack on the government. Do you find there's, any of that direct concern? Are you free? To what extent do you feel free to attack the government and its position? [Zvi Dor-Ner] Well, I'm free if I don't if I don't behave foolishly. What it means essentially, that I am under obligation to produce a wide spectrum of opinion. I am under obligation to if I present one opinion, to present some other opinions of my ..... [Host talks over] you say no [Zvi Dor-Ner] no. I'm under obligation to balance. [Host] We have a, a similar thing built into the law, you know, and to set up the uh the, by the Federal Communications Act. The idea of

fairness doctrine, which requires not in the same program, but on over a period of time, some kind of guarantee that various points of view will get in to the programming. Now is that built into law or is that a consensus? [Zvi Dor-Ner] No it's not, it's not built, built into, into the law. I think it's built into a fair journalistic practice. I do it. I do it. I make, I even I don't even buy the argument of over time. That's a very flexible one. [Host] But to get back to John Rookline??'s question, when he asked you how do you handle.... I'm criticism of the government. But, but my question is, you are the government are you not? [Zvi Dor-Ner] No. I'm, no. No we are not. We are a public, a public authority. And we are certainly not the government. And we are not representing the government. We are not the voice of the government. We are independent public authority. And I think we are very conscious of it. And the government is very conscious of it. And, but, we have, I think, fair, but tough relations with the government. [Host] What, what programs, can you be specific? What programs have you produced where

you are on the borderline. You did them, but you worried. [Zvi Dor-Ner] Well. I produced a few months ago, a program about the Israeli Arabs. Now Israeli Arabs is the community of, of half a million people in Israel. They are Israeli citizen. They're also Palestinians. They have a lot of sympathy to, to, to Arab causes. They have a lot of sympathy to Palestinian people. And, in terms, in Israeli terms, it's an extremely sensitive problem. Eh, on this program, we had, I think, the full spectrum of the Israeli Arab opinion in Israel. We had, we had people who are of the far left. The communist, the, the Maki, the Israeli communist party. There were very few Jewish members, a large Arab following. We have people who are even farther on the nationalist spectrum of the Arab population. People who advocate the same thing essentially which are advocated

by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. We had, we had also people, who consider themselves very much Israelis. Though they are Muslims and Arabs. And we have them in a fair proportions. And there were no free cases. They are real people. And I think that's, that's a program which cause, I think, a lot of anxiety to the government, to the television management. It's a program broadcasted live. I could assure everyone of the, of the are a participating that there would be no editing. Whatever you will say would be on the air. And we broadcasted the program. We broadcasted full program unedited and I think it's a it's problematic because there were a lot of telephones a lot of pressures a lot of anxieties. Exactly. But that's what you think we are in the vein a very delicate situation. You know I was I was in effect proud of my organization

in a way this was handled. [Host]What are the what are the most interesting programs so far as the Israeli audiences are concerned? If you had a list of three different kinds of programs because they were attractive to the audience, what would they be in modern Israel today and say in the last year or two? Television programs. [Dor-Ner] Well some of them might be American. I think we are a like like many other nations we're broadcasting Kojak and he's extremely popular. [Host] So what do you do besides the highly intellectual programs like Kojak? [Dor-Ner] I think we have we have a fair share of entertainment. We have a fair share of drama. Drama, some of it imported from England in the same way that you do here. We probably carry a larger percentage of news and public affairs programming than do any American stations. I think we have --we are very much concerned with public affairs. And

I think we do it very well. [Host] I suppose one of the reasons is that you're not particularly concerned with ratings as television would be in this country. [Dor-Ner] That's right. There is there is no way by which audience can switch to another channel when I'm broadcasting the third hour. They can switch off. Some of them can switch to Jordan television and watch a movie. But right, we don't have, we don't have a rating and it's both an advantage and a problem. [Host] I have heard that the Israelis of Jewish background are terribly interested in radio news, television news, they listen on the hour especially if it's a crisis, they exchange bulletins with one another every 15 minutes. What is the interest of the Israeli Arabs, the Druze, those on the left bank and so on and so forth, in the same subject of news? Are they just as avid followers, have they been trained to be just as avidly interested? [Dor-Ner] I think if you if you live in Israel, or if you live in Middle East in general,

you see more clearly than in other places how news affects you, how much public affairs ?Ari? refers. It's excellent school for people and as they become very much very conscious of the first item on on the news. It's an item which directly touches on their life. That's what does it. It's true to... it's true as far as the Jews are concerned, its true as far as the Arabs, Druze or anybody else. Just lately I had the experience of being in East Jerusalem talking with some with some Arabs and the radio was blaring. And we were switching between a Lebanese station broadcasting news from ?Terezata?, to which they were very much concerned, to the Israeli station which was broadcasting news from from Uganda where the Israelis were heard by Palestinians. You

know and we're drinking the friendly, very friendly matter you know and I would say it's my my Arabic is somewhat limited. I would ask them what's happening in ?Terezata? and they would ask me what's what's happening in Entebbe. I think there is a great consciousness to news in the Middle East. And it's part of the situation. [Host] Well, when we look at the news in general,what is the interest in American news? Does it... Is it all on foreign policy or are they concerned with the broader aspects of what's going on in the United States? [Dor-Ner] Are you asking me to compare as an American..? [Host] No no, I'm saying in terms of the Israeli interest. [Dor-Ner] No, I think, I think the main, the main Israeli interest is to what extent American policy affects Israel, or affects the Middle Eastern problem and Israelis are very much aware of that. Ehh... United States holds, to a large extent, the openings

for any kind of future negotiation and future agreement. That the American position is extremely important in what is going to happen in the Middle East. I don't think that there are many other people that follow the American elections and American political statements as closely as the Israelis. [Host] They followed presumably the Watergate thing with great interest day by day. [Dor-Ner] I think I think I think Israelis are great followers of American politics and more than surprisingly they still like Americans. You mentioned before that the country does not have a Constitution so these things are not particularly spelled out and you have operated in both United States... You were ah, went through school here in- at the school of public communication and in Israel. What is your sense, is there a sense of difference in the feeling of Israeli journalists towards the issue of freedom of the press because it's not

guaranteed? Are there special areas where they are different in their philosophical approach than you find American journalists? [Dor-Ner] Yes there are. I think, I think there is certain amount of you know innocence and arrogance and power that is unique to Americans. And I think the kind... [Host] The reporters? To the reporters who are writing, do you mean? [Dor-Ner] To the whole population and it's reflected in their reporters. This is a very fashionable concept of the adversarial relations between the press and the government. It's of your statement. But I was trying to to analyze for myself to what extent my relations with my government are adversary. And they are adversary in many respects. In many respects are not. I complain clearly you know, I mean I'm an adversary of my government. No, my my government has

some adversaries which are my adversary first of all. It's a more complex, it's a more complex idea and I think, I think most Israelis and Israeli journalists recognize the fact that we're adversary to the government in many respects, and in many respects we are, we are part of, part of what the Israeli government is. [Host] A responsibility to support the government because of this the whole nation is in danger? Does that enter into it? Much more than say a reporter would feel that here that that he or she has I think. [Dor-Ner] I think the reason Israel... Israel has strange scales. Everything is a little, a little more on the heroic side. A little more bigger than life. And some of its funny. Some of it is very real. And you become part of it. You become part of it and you can't,

you can't separate it, separate yourself very clearly from from the politics. It's very different. I think, I think nobody, nobody thought about adversarial relations of United States or the adversarial relations of journalist in United States during the Second World War. It still was the same, but it was different. And I think that that's what happening in Israel. [Host] What about the more personal, the more personal kind of journalism that doesn't get into, specifically into areas of politics? Do you find there's the same sense that a reporter feels here that he can press very far into areas of privacy, I think today, and which is going to lead probably to more conflicts in the courts in this country. But what is the attitude towards Israel, of Israeli journalists, towards the private lives of people for instance? [Dor-Ner] I think we have different laws in this, in this area

but the result is very thin and in many ways the situation is similar, though maybe, though maybe there is a different propriety, and as a country is small. Many people know each other. It's a - Surprisingly, it's surprising how many people know each other and how many of them are related in one way or another. How many went to school together, or spent some time in the army together, or are working for us in the institution of ??? and journalism tends to reflect that to some extent. And here is a journalist is not defended by the same kind of and anonymity as he is in American press, you know. You don't go to play. And you make fun for somebody and then you go to Washington and that's it. You -- [Host] is under more personal pressure then? [Dor-Ner] Yes, yes I think it, well it effects the board for wars and for the better. It's more personal responsibility. You have to be more

conscious that there are repercussions. [Host] Zvi, do you watch Egyptian television and Jordanian television and so on too to keep up with the competition? [Dor-Ner] Errr, I watch some Jordanian television. Jordanian television has beautiful facilities. They broadcast in color, while we are still broadcasting black and white. And I think they are much ahead in the installments of Kojak. [Host] So that's where you envy them? [Dor-Ner] But they're not, they're not doing it, they're not doing an interesting, interesting work in terms of self production or news. They are importing a lot of American, European-American made programs. [Host] Are you going over to color TV in the foreseeable future? [Dor-Ner] That's, that's a, we don't have a date for that. It's continuously in the air, it will mean an incredible amount of money in terms of national economy. Not so much as a station is almost, almost ready to do that.

But there will be a tendency to switch to different sets that other stuff will become obsolete. That's a concern. It's an economic concern. [Host] Well I I'm very pleased that you've been able to join us, Zvi Dor-Ner today because we don't get too many chances to get an insight into Israeli life from the producer's view on television certainly and to see some of the rather unique problems that you've been able to outline for us. I also want to thank my co-host, Jon Wicklund, the Dean of the school of public communication for joining us. As you know we are interested in learning from others on this program and we think that our own Bill of Rights is enhanced by learning about how others handle these affairs. So thank you again Zvi Dor-Ner. This is Bernard Rubin saying goodbye. WGBH radio, in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic

Communications at the School of Communications at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and a Free People, an examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. This program was produced in the studios of WGBH Boston.