When Netanyahu and the Right were in power, we claimed that
the general media was hounding them, exaggerating stories,
adding its own criticism and turning every little molehill
into a mountain. Their goal was to damage and malign the
right wing government and to give them a bad reputation.
With the change of government, we must now determine if the
media acts in the same manner towards the new government, or
if it uses a different measuring stick. Does the Left get a
more forgiving attitude, unlike the previous government, or
are our claims a figment of our imagination?
Let the reader judge for himself.
1. At Netanyahu's victory party three years ago, the Prime
Minister thanked his wife Sarah and the thousands present
cheered. The next day, the newspapers focused on the
incident, in a "non-condemning fashion" of course, and gave
it a lot of space. At the beginning of last week, at the
victory party of Barak and Yisrael Achat in Kibbutz Shefayim,
almost the same incident reoccurred. Ehud Barak thanked his
wife and the crowd cheered.
Surprisingly, to look at the newspapers the next day it was
as if the story almost didn't happen. Only snatches of it
were mentioned, here and there.
Did something change in the past three years? What justified
a large headline then does not justify the same thing today?
Or perhaps it's because they're dealing with a different
government and a left-wing Prime Minister, not a right-wing
one?
2. Ehud Barak announced that he wants to pass a Norwegian law
and increase the number of government ministers from eighteen
to twenty-four, and possibly even to twenty-six. That means
that there will another six or eight ministers and about
twenty Knesset members. The financial ramifications are
clear: Another twenty-some salaries, another twenty-some
offices, drivers, assistants, secretaries, cars, etc. A total
of over one hundred million shekels will be added to the
country's budget!
When Binyamin Netanyahu wanted to just pass a similar
Norwegian law (and he did not even propose to enlarge the
government like Barak wants to do), the Labor and Meretz
parties vigorously opposed the proposal. Now, they have
changed colors. True, their men will be the ones chosen. But
where is the media? Why isn't it protesting the fact that
Meretz and Yisrael Achat have changed their opinion for the
sole purpose of gaining more seats? What happened when it
was the opposite?
In addition, three years ago the newspapers reported in large
headlines the many expenses that the country would incur as a
result of a Norwegian law. Will there be no expenses today?
Are large headlines and sharp criticism not justified?
Barak's plans entail a much larger expense than Netanyahu's
proposals that were never even brought to the Knesset.
3. Yisrael Achat's negotiating staff, as well as Ehud Barak
himself, stationed themselves in the highly expensive, five
star hotel, the Dan Acadia in Hertzelia. We are talking about
renting many rooms, meals and refreshments for dozens and
hundreds of people. This is an ostentatious and wasteful
coalition negotiations by any measure.
The media did criticize the ostentatious negotiations, but
only two days after it was already in session and in a
relatively minimal fashion, with no large headlines. We can
easily imagine that if Netanyahu had done the same thing, the
headlines would have been many inches bigger. But in this
case there is nothing to compare since Netanyahu conducted
his coalition negotiations in the Knesset, where it doesn't
cost any money to use the rooms.
After the media did begin to talk about this unnecessary
waste of money, Ra'anan Cohen, the Labor party's general
secretary, asked Dan Tichon, meeting director of the Knesset,
to arrange a number of rooms in the Knesset for Barak to
conduct his negotiations. It turns out that this was Cohen's
second request; the first was originally filed the week
before Shavuos, when they were given the appropriate number
of rooms. Nevertheless, they preferred Dan Acadia over the
Knesset. It seems that Barak will go to the Knesset, but it
will be to avoid serious criticism after a week of living it
up in the hotel.
4. Before the elections, the stock market went up in
anticipation of the change. After the change, instead of
going up, the stock market went down. Up to Wednesday, for
over a week, it went down about seven percent. We can
reasonably assume that if the stock market would have gone
up, the media would have applauded Barak for bringing
financial prosperity to the country. But now that the stock
market went down, no one attributes it to Barak's popularity
and the fact that he is not disclosing any financial plans,
not even to calm the population and stop its losses.
We can assume that if Netanyahu had won the elections and the
stock market went down, the media would attribute it to the
investors' dissatisfaction in the election results, their
general disappointment in Netanyahu's government, etc. In
short, Netanyahu is always guilty and Barak -- never.
