In video: Dr. Yifat Ben Chai Segev in a Talk Talk interview with David Wertheim/still photography: Reuven Castro
"I waited for the trial to tell the truth as it is: I was not pressured in the merger of Bezeq-Yes," Dr. Yifat Ben Chai Segev repeats the main points of her testimony in court, which contradicted what she said in the investigation at the Nia Authority.
Let us recall:
Chairman of the Cable and Satellite Council The former astonished the court, when she accused the investigators of deception and an unfair investigation and explained that she did not believe the prosecutor's office. This despite the fact that she also admitted to the court that she accelerated the approval of the deal under the direction of the director general of the Ministry of Communications at the time, Shlomo Filber - and confirmed that she knew he did it on behalf of Netanyahu.
In the conversation For the first time with her since
that dramatic testimony, in the TikTok podcast of the Israel Press Institute ,
which is also broadcast on the Walla+ channel
, Ben Chai Segev attacks the media and defends Netanyahu ("My testimony does not fit with the story of the failed media in Israel"), explaining the strengthening of Channel 14 ( "A counter-reaction to the bias of the broadcast channels") and pessimistic about the ability of News 13 to rise ("Clearly it was a mistake to lose Ila Hasson and Sharon Gal, you can see it in the numbers") and provides an interesting explanation for the tweets of support for Netanyahu that came out of her Twitter account, After she denied that it was hers.
Part of the conversation is presented here in the article. Listen or watch the full conversation.
"Now, the strengthening of Channel 14 is due to the weakening of 13. Very, very simply, in my opinion, many, many Arabs are playing in front of an empty goal"
First of all, you are an expert in communication. As a researcher who did a doctorate on the subject, I want to try to understand with you what is happening these days in the distribution of television viewing. We were used to the structure of two main commercial channels alongside niche channels and small satellite channels, and in the last year we are suddenly getting used to a different structure - of one leading channel (Keshet 12) and 3 other channels that tail it. What is your explanation for this?
"I will tell you something that may surprise you and may even provoke some kind of resistance, but try to flow with me and see. The changes in the viewing map in Israel are very similar to the changes in the political map in Israel. If you also pay attention to the political map in Israel, we are in the process of moving from parties, from a bloc map, to a map which is much more distributed and you can also see it while watching.
"Why is this happening? Because in the end broadcasting in Israel is a national activity, a very political activity.
I mean, it is true that the broadcast has islands of reality and light entertainment, etc., but in the end, the Israeli broadcast is, at its core, news and current affairs. Now, when I say political, it's not necessarily partisan. I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say that what you just described actually describes a situation where each channel is like a kind of party that has its own audience, and I can very easily characterize the audiences of each of the channels as well, and this is a phenomenon that will grow stronger in my opinion, for sure In the next year or two, when Israel is so immersed in the political matter."
Channel 14 existed for years as Channel 20, and suddenly within one year we see a crazy increase in its viewership. Is there another example of this in the world, of such an unusual jump?
"You're right, look, First, I'm talking about a process that already started a decade ago, and Channel 14 doesn't even last a decade. They started when I was in cable and satellite, I think in 2015. To your question, no, I don't know, but I will also tell you what else there is in the world. There are no other broadcast channels in the world that receive a viewing share like the State of Israel, the State of Israel is an exemplar, it is an island in the global sea of viewing within which still at 20:00 in the evening the majority of viewing goes to the broadcast channels. It has no peer in the western world, I say that responsibly. In the Western world, the situation is the opposite, the broadcast channels have long since lost their primacy over viewing, and viewing is distributed among tens, if not hundreds, of channels.
"Now, the strengthening of Channel 14 is due to the weakening of Channel 13. Very, very simply, in my opinion, many, many Arabs are playing in front of an empty goal. We have Channel 12 - which is 'Israel's channel,' they managed to conquer and fortify this status for themselves, and there is Everything else, and the game is among everything else, more or less."
I ask because there have been attempts in the past to reach the People Meter people, and maybe we will make some manipulative attempt to reach this audience?
"So I won't say it's impossible, but I will say that it's difficult to impossible to reach the person who makes up this People Meter panel, and it's also predestined for failure, really. I think that in the end what we're seeing here reflects a real trend in the Israeli public. The strengthening of channel 14 is also a kind of counter-reaction to the tendency of channels 12 and 13 and to a considerable extent 11, this is what we see here."
On a personal level, do you get to watch channel 14? Are you satisfied with the nature of the broadcasts there? We claim that this channel is a propaganda channel, that it is a mouthpiece of the government, that it is a channel for the Netanyahu family and the Likud party.As someone who approved the "Heritage Channel" to broadcast news, is that what you wished for?
"I think that's how it should be, David. I also think that my views on this matter are known and not a secret. I oppose the existing regulation, the existing regulation does not hold water, it does not correspond with reality, it certainly does not correspond with what is happening in the world, it is not It makes sense, these restrictions are illogical. And in the end I think it's good to have Channel 14 and it's good to have a variety of opinions and I wish there were more, and that there would be of all types and of all species and that there would also be more studios like yours, I'm in favor of maximum pluralism in the Israeli opinion market. I'm in favor of freedom, Yes, I'm in favor of freedom, and on the condition that there is full disclosure, which everyone knows. Look, regarding Channel 14, everyone knows that it has an agenda, I have a problem with those who are supposedly very neutral, but they are not neutral at all."
More in Walla!
"Thanks" to Channel 14, Keshet and Reshet will also benefit from benefits worth millions, under the excuse of "increasing competition"
To the full article
"I have a problem with those who are supposedly neutral, but they are not neutral at all." Channel 14/screenshot, Channel 14
"I was not put under any pressure in the Bezek-Weiss merger"
Let's move on to the Netanyahu trial, and the discrepancies, you can't call it anything else, that were discovered between your testimony to the police, sorry, to the Securities Authority, and what you said in the trial. In the investigation, you said that you accelerated the merger deal between Bezeq Lis without preconditions because of pressure from Filber, in your testimony at the court, you suddenly claimed that you wanted to advance and the CEO of the previous office, Avi Berger, delayed you. Suddenly a meeting that you didn't remember came up where you explained that the air conditioning went up during his time.
You said you believed in this merger, but until Philever demanded it you didn't promote it. In the police you expressed discomfort with the approval of the deal, in court you said you wanted it. Explain the contradiction.
"So first of all, I have to tell you that you are not accurate from beginning to end, I have never, ever - and I invite you to go to the transcripts of my testimony - I did not say that I was pressured to approve the Bezek-Yes deal, I never said that. I will tell you More than that, I also said in my testimony - and my words, by the way, were silenced - that there was a process here that in my eyes is completely legitimate. There was no interference by the Minister of Communications, and I repeat this to this day, there was no interference by the Minister of Communications (Prime Minister) in this process of the approval of the merger of the Bezeq-Yes deal.
"And I also want to tell you one more thing, what are we talking about? We are talking about a public council, on which 15 people sit, who do very in-depth and very comprehensive checks, economic and legal and security and make a decision to approve a transaction, even if for the purpose of the matter, I thought it was due to extraneous considerations, excuse me? What, what about all the other 14? Is this a bunch of sheep being led? Forgive me for this charged image, really not. I did not say that, and I repeat it, I do, I did say it in court and I repeat it, that the conditions under which my testimony was given, are illogical conditions.
"I will also say on top of that, also during my testimony, again, a testimony and not an investigation, I was not shown a complete picture, I was not given the opportunity to present documents, I was denied access to the documents, I came home that night and broke through the documents. I said this at the trial and I say This here, I, after a sleepless night, put my hands on such a pile of documents, which I also presented in court, and for some reason, these documents were not presented at the hearing. I, in the end, waited for the trial to bring out the truth, as it was As it is. And I repeat this to you today and to all the viewers, no pressure was applied to me, not even a trace of pressure in the Bezek-Weiss merger."
More in Walla!
Two members of the media will be prosecuted subject to a hearing for harassing a key witness in the Netanyahu trial
To the full article
"I did not come, neither to supply nor to give, neither gifts nor choppers". Ben Chai Segev in the High Court/Flash 90, Olbia Pitosi
"Excuse me? Do you want me to tell you what it's like to be without a phone for 12 hours, in a room that's a meter by meter dungeon, with no option to go to the bathroom, except with permission, when they come back and try to get things out of you that you can't say because they're not true?"
There is another interesting event here. People were interrogated at the blade, you were just a motive in a one-day testimony. A few months pass. There is suddenly a lot of bibistic interest around your testimony. It seemed they were expecting her. They filled the hall. Then you come up with a new thesis, and with messages that remind those of the accused, that the police are looking for Netanyahu, that they are looking for an arrow for the target. Then you suddenly get a job in the mail. Do you think if you hadn't provided the goods against the police you would still have received them?
"I want to tell you something, I did not come, neither to provide nor to give, neither gifts nor choppers. I came to tell the truth. I, unlike many senior journalists in the Israeli media, ruled, respected the language of the law and kept silent. I have never I was not interviewed, although believe me David, I had many requests to be interviewed, and also by the way there were witnesses who were interviewed, who did not really respect the law and its instructions. I was not interviewed, I maintained my right to remain silent, as required by law, and I waited for the moment when I would arrive in court, And why the court? Because this is the place, because I believe that there are judges in Jerusalem and I believe in the system in the judicial system and I waited to say my words. I came to tell the truth. I have no interest, neither with the prosecutor's office nor with the judges nor with Binyamin Netanyahu, I have an interest With the truth and with the public, that's what I'm interested in.
"But you know, the Israeli media has been cultivating this narrative of 'just not Bibi' for about a decade, so it doesn't really matter what I said in the testimony and what I said to the police, and it's also It really doesn't matter what is written in my transcripts."
You have a full stomach about the conduct of the police and the investigations, but in the end you gave testimony for one day. What is all the anger really about?
"Excuse me? Want me to tell you what it's like to be without a phone for 12 hours, in a room that's a meter by meter dungeon, with no option to go to the bathroom, except with permission, when they come back and try to get things out of you that you can't say because they're not true? I suggest you go through it for 12 hours and then we'll talk again. Because it is very easy from the side to say okay. For anyone who exalts democracy and individual freedom and human rights, he won't convince me that there was a proper procedure here, okay?"
It's interesting, after the testimony in the trial, David Sharan also became an adviser to the Prime Minister, Filber became the Likud pollster, Yossi Fox became the Cabinet Secretary. What is the layman who sits at home and sees how your testimony in the Netanyahu trial was overturned and immediately after that Amsalam and Krei turn to you and ask to put you in the position? Is there a connection between the two things?
"Excuse me, so why was I appointed to the second authority for television and radio at the time? And why was I appointed to the position of CEO of the Grading Committee? And why was I later appointed as Chairman of the Council for Cable and Satellite? Why? On the contrary, let me offer you another option to tell this story. Here is a careerist woman who has held very senior positions in her career, it is not surprising that she will continue to hold senior positions in her career, really not surprising, and public positions are always appointed by a minister. Do you know by which minister I was appointed to the Cable and Satellite Council? by Gilad Ardan. By whom was I appointed to the second authority? By Dalia Itzik, it's ministers from different parties, so what does that mean? I was once appointed by the Labor Party, I was once appointed by the Likud, what did you have to say then? What did I do then that he gave me?".
So there was no trial against the Prime Minister.
"No, so what? So that's exactly the point. I am appointed because I am entitled to it, by law, not by grace, thanks to my skills, thanks to my education,Thanks to my experience, that's all."
"I am appointed because I am entitled to it, by law." Minister Dodi Amsalem/Reuven Castro
"There were tweets in the past that were not made in my name"
There was recently a publication by Avishai Greenzeig in Khan 11 that I would be happy to understand with you. In your investigation at the court, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh showed you a strange tweet on Twitter by 'Yifat Ben Chai Segev' from which it appears that you think a state commission of inquiry should be established on the alleged failures of the prosecution in case 4000. The tweet was a reply to Eli Tzipori who wrote a post about the prosecution's failures on the subject of Filber
Presumably they wanted to show the Court of Appeals your alleged bias, which included surveillance and a friendly response to Netanyahu's supporter and the echoing of messages from Netanyahu and his supporters
.
You answered that it wasn't you. You explained that a lot of people tweet on your behalf. It was possible to understand that you meant that it was not your stranger. Then, after a few months, you tweeted from the same stranger recently that you filed a lawsuit against Guy Peleg and Amelia Doak.
I'm trying to understand, this stranger of yours?
"I'm just suggesting, I want to stop you for a moment, because I don't know if you know, but Avishai Greenzeig published an apology. There is, no, because there is allegedly defamation and libel in this, so don't repeat it. He published an apology following My complaint about the corporation."
This stranger of yours? is he not yours? Let's put an end to all the rumors in this story.
"So I'm telling you like this, I'm really not that expert and in control and very involved in Twitter, and yes, there were tweets in the past that were not made in my name. Indeed, yes. I said that."
You say that you don't know who hacked your user account, but on the evening when Aviad Glickman and Baruchi read on news 13 that the judges recommended the prosecution drop the bribe in the 4,000 case, you publish from that user "there are judges in Jerusalem".
"But you heard that I'm back, I've already said since the beginning of our interview several times that there are judges in Jerusalem, I have no problem with that, there are judges in Jerusalem. There are also female judges in Jerusalem by the way, and they are no less good, and I hope there will be more female judges."
More in Walla!
The rich experience, the letter full of clichés to the employees and the question marks: what is behind the strange move of appointing the new CEO of Network 13
To the full article
"I'm breaking the story here in many ways, because it doesn't work out that I, a creature like me, would come and say these things. It doesn't work out in any way. Not in terms of my personal profile, and by the way, not in terms of political leanings."
Just to summarize the matter of the sentence, do you even know Tzipori? Are you in my head? All these people accompanied the trial, sitting in the courtroom, echoing you, cheering you on, are you talking to them?
"So I have the opportunity to tell you, look at what happened here, my testimony and my truth, as it was told in court, does not fit with the story that the Israeli media is trying to paint here, insistently and while ignoring and sometimes even trampling on the facts. I break here the story in many, many ways, because it doesn't work out that I, a creature like me, would come and say these things. It doesn't work out in any way. Not in terms of my personal profile, and by the way, not in terms of political tendencies."
No, it just didn't add up with your first testimony, that's all.
"No, no, no, that's not the point. The point is that it doesn't fit with who I am and what I am, and it's not a guarantee for the ears of a lot of journalists here and that's the only reason."
"The situation is very, very difficult, I say this with great sadness." News 13/official website, News 13
"Channel 2 needed Rabin's murder to make a change"
Let's talk about Channel 13. You are a director of the news company, and they recently appointed a new CEO for the channel, Emiliano Kalmazuk. Did you know him? Did you know who he was before he was confirmed on the
board
?
? He wrote a very long letter to the employees, he spoke of the channel as a center of entertainment, inspiration and information, and received quite a bit of criticism.
"I really can't be impressed by someone I haven't met yet. In the end, he will be judged by deeds and not by words and not by letters, yes? And if we want to be precise, he will test with numbers and not with letters."
Let's talk in macro about network 13. Are you optimistic?
"Look, the situation is very, very difficult, I say this with great sadness because I care, I care about this place, I even have a responsibility towards this place But unfortunately, with each passing day, the chance for transformation there is diminishing, but on the other hand, you know, I believe in miracles."
Why are the chances diminishing?
"I told you why, an audience is a very, very valuable asset in our worlds and it is also a very stable asset , and an audience you lose, it's very hard to get it back. It's much more brutal than in the worlds of retail, yes? When you lose a customer in the food and services sector, you can win them back with such and such operations, as far as habits and viewing patterns are concerned, it is very difficult.
"Ask Yedioth Ahronoth, how difficult it was to do Yedioth Ahronoth when they were talking about the parable of the Kippa, ask Channel 2, come on, Channel 2 needed Rabin's murder, sorry for the cynicism, in order to make this change. I will remind you that until then there is still one channel A parable and a leader in the dome, so it is very difficult to appropriate for yourself and create what we call a captive audience. And 13 loses every day, every day a share, and another share, and another share."
Why does someone like Len Blavatnik, one of the richest people in the world, even need a channel, which I actually lost, in little Israel? What does it give him?
"I really don't know, look, that's a question you should address to him, because there is no doubt that the channel in the existing numbers, is not profitable and it cannot be profitable, there is very simple math here. I must say that until two years ago, it seemed that the channel was on a path The king even quite cracked his positioning in the general menu of Broadcast in Israel, but since the channel, there is no doubt that he is also in trouble, I cannot say for reasons of responsibility, I do not know what the financial situation of the channel is, but I do know that with such numbers, it is very difficult to hold here A profitable economic model in the State of Israel".
More in Walla!
Network 13 wants back the viewers who fled to channel 14, and the employees are afraid
To the full article
"Brought more on Channel 11 than the edition on News 13". Sturdy/screenshot, here 11
"The numbers speak for themselves. I, by the way, don't think that Ila Hasson held or holds a Bibiist audience today. This week, for example, Hasson brought more news on Channel 11 than 13, more than the edition!"
Do you think they made a mistake when they gave up, let's say, characters, let's call it, who represent a Bibiist crowd, like Ila Hasson and Sharon Gal, who this week it was announced will return?
"Unequivocally, unequivocally, the numbers speak for themselves. I, by the way, do not think that Ela Hasson had or holds today a Bibist audience. By the way, again, your very nickname, the same Bibist, indicates the tendency I was talking about in the media. This week, for example, Hasson brought Channel 11 has more news than 13, more than the edition of 13!".
Well, we have to finish. Something you want to repeat? Didn't we say? did we miss
"I think so, I will tell you again with the required friendliness, that it is a shame that we devoted half of the time to a topic that in my view is much less important in relation to the Israeli media, and that is the Netanyahu trial."
You don't always remember, but two of Netanyahu's cases out of the three are directly related to the Israeli media. A bit hard to ignore.
"No, but look, I have to tell you something and it is important that you include it. I have been in the Israeli media for almost 30 years and I have had the opportunity to work and accompany ministers from all parties and from all political spectrum, whether it is the Labor Party and Likud and Kadima and even Shas, and I want to tell you that in every As for the 4,000 case, which is the case I know first hand - I don't know the 1,000 or the 2,000 - Benjamin Netanyahu did not do anything that other ministers did not do. I will tell you more than that, other ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, did not do something that presidents in France and the United States did not do and are not doing, and you should start internalizing this in the media. And in my eyes, this is the true story of this trial and of everything that happens around it, and by the way, I also said this in my testimony in court."
More on the same topic:
Yifat ben Chai Segev
Cable and Satellite Council
Benjamin Netanyahu
Bag 4000
Shlomo Filber
David Sharan
Channel 14
News 13
Rainbow
Israel Post