A recent report by Yoav Yitzhak of News1 revealed a secret meeting that took place between Nochi Dankner, head of IDB, and Amos Schocken, chairman of the Schocken Group. IDB is a conglomerate that owns a vast number of large Israeli companies, including Cellcom (major cellular company), Supersol (largest food retailer) and Maariv, one of Israel's most popular newspapers. The Schocken Group includes Haaretz, one of the most popular newspapers in Israel as well, and The Marker, one of the two most popular business news sites in the country.
The subject of the meeting was, according to the report, unfavorable reporting in the Schocken Groups' newspapers, and specifically The Marker, on IDB and its subsidiary companies, that caused them "irrevocable harm".
Yitzhak states that "the purchase of Maariv enables Dankner to fight back against Schocken", adding that "there are many things to write or uncover about Schocken, but Dankner uses this tool carefully."
Yitzhak further writes that "the Schocken Group was hurt by a complete ad boycott on the part of companies in the IDB group, and has been delegitimized by other business organisations that were hurt by the group's destructive actions."
He adds that "it has become clearer that the protest led by the group and its attack on the tycoons has extensively damaged a great many business organisations, but it is impossible to single out a major entity that has benefited from that."
Yitzhak predicts that the meeting will "lead to understandings, for instance, to moderate mutual attacks and make a cooperative effort to bring business back on track."
Yoav Itzhak is one of the leading journalists in Israel, an investigator who has uncovered corruption regarding Presidents, Prime Ministers, MPs, government officials and many business people. As such, his observations deserve to be heeded.
If indeed Yitzhak's analysis is correct, it is very disturbing for the following reasons:
1. Any secret meeting between media moguls is a cause for concern.
2. Buying a major newspaper in order reduce other papers' coverage of business organisations is anti-democratic, to say the least.
3. An ad boycott on a newspaper by a major business group in order to reduce coverage, hide events and / or force a specific agenda is not only a harmful and anti-democratic practice, but may also be illegal.
This is an ominous development that definitely needs to be addressed by the public and perhaps by the regulator as well.
It is a great irony that such behavior is exactly what The Marker is fighting against.
This article represents only the writer's opinions.
This content is provided and controlled by PUBLICi.
