Knesset TV: Reclaiming Public Trust in Israel

Amid the turbulence surrounding Israel’s public broadcasting, a glaring oversight stands out: the forgotten state of Knesset TV. Established in 2004 to provide citizens with unmediated access to the workings of their legislature, the channel has drifted far from its raison d’être. Privatized and now under the stewardship of RGE Media, it has become a textbook example of mismanagement, characterized by low ratings, inflated costs, and digital irrelevance. To fulfill its founding purpose, Knesset TV must be brought into the fold of Kan, Israel’s public broadcasting system, as a specialized and autonomous division.

This is not merely a technical adjustment. It is a corrective to a profound erosion of public trust in the channel’s ability to serve as a neutral platform for parliamentary transparency. Privatization has rendered Knesset TV less an instrument of democracy and more a sideshow – mired in costly contracts and superfluous programming that distracts from its core mission. Its failure mirrors broader challenges to Israeli media, where public interest is increasingly sacrificed on the altar of commercial expediency.

The idea of integrating Knesset TV into Kan gains credibility when viewed through the lens of Kan’s remarkable evolution. Formed in 2017 as a replacement for the defunct Israel Broadcasting Authority, Kan has not only survived intense political resistance but has flourished. Today, it delivers high-quality, diverse programming that resonates across Israel’s fragmented social and linguistic spectrum. Its success underscores the importance of public broadcasting in fostering a shared civic space – an espace commun – where competing narratives can coexist without descending into partisan cacophony.

Such integration, however, must be approached with care. For Knesset TV to truly flourish under Kan, its editorial independence must be sacrosanct. A model can be drawn from Germany’s ARD or from England’s BBC, where regional broadcasters operate independently while benefiting from shared resources and standards. By creating a distinct editorial unit within Kan, Knesset TV can maintain its singular focus on parliamentary affairs, insulated from the broader newsroom’s priorities.

History offers compelling lessons here. The slow suffocation of Hungary’s independent media through state overreach and the erosion of Italy’s public broadcaster, RAI, under commercial pressures highlight the fragility of public institutions when left to drift. Closer to home, the collapse of the Israel Broadcasting Authority in 2017 remains a cautionary tale of what happens when reforms are guided by political expediency rather than a commitment to public service.

The reimagining of Knesset TV as Kan Knesset should aspire to do more than broadcast parliamentary debates. It can – and must – become a critical node in Israel’s democratic infrastructure, one that demystifies the legislative process, fosters civic engagement, and ensures that no segment of society feels alienated from their government. The opportunity to leverage Kan’s expertise in digital media is particularly vital. A robust digital approach, from live-streaming debates to producing accessible explanatory content, could position Kan Knesset as a leader in parliamentary transparency for the digital age.

One might ask why such a move is necessary now. The answer lies in the broader assault on Israel’s public institutions, particularly Kan itself. Communication Minister Shlomo Karhi’s ongoing attempts to privatize Kan and transfer control of viewership ratings to the government exemplify an unsettling pattern of consolidating political influence over media narratives. In such a fraught environment, leaving Knesset TV under private management, vulnerable to similar pressures, would be a grave error.

It is not enough to demand accountability; the structure of media institutions must enable it. By integrating Knesset TV into Kan, Israel would not simply repair a broken channel but fortify its democratic foundations. The Knesset’s deliberations are, after all, a reflection of the nation’s ongoing negotiation of its identity and priorities. Ensuring that these debates are accessible, comprehensible, and unbiased is not just a service to viewers; it is a commitment to the very principles on which the state was founded.

Such an effort would not be without challenges. Political actors might resist, seeing this as a loss of control rather than a gain in credibility. Yet history shows that public trust is won not through spectacle but through steadfast adherence to purpose. A revitalized Kan Knesset, operating with integrity and professionalism, could become a rare point of consensus in an increasingly polarized society – a quiet success in a landscape otherwise defined by noise.