Lip service: Israeli 'talk back' culture

This article is cross posted with permission from the European Journalism Centre, an independent non-profit media institute based in Maastricht, the Netherlands.

"I'm not a popular Prime Minister. I probably would have been more popular, if I was leaking to the press, initiating positive polls and paying comments agencies to post flattering comments about me".

These words belong to Ehud Olmert, the former Prime Minister of Israel. They are from a 2007 speech which, not long after, received the immortal nickname the "talk back speech".

Commercial companies take advantage of the feature by writing promotional comments to benefit the interests of their clients. Apparently, Olmert was not using the services of such a company.

Research by Professor William Dutton, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, has determined that the internet did not change social structures, just emphasised them.

Bearing this in mind, one can say that the comments agencies are just PR companies which have adapted to new media rules. It appears that new media however, is catching on.

"During election days, we receive thousands of comments praising this or that party or leader," said Yon Feder, the editor of Ynet, one of the Israel's biggest news websites.

"It is usually ridiculous. We catch it quite fast and delete them. We do not compromise when it comes to comments on behalf of."

Examining the comments landscape of Israel, it seems that the commercial comments are just part of the wider picture. A much bigger issue lies in the language and meaning of these talk backs. Usually they are very offensive and violent, to say the least.

It seems that the left wing has lost ground when it comes to online commenting. It could be a non-issue if we were talking solely about comments, but it is a major issue when leaders and the public itself treat these comments as the authentic voice of the people, as Olmert's speech shows us.

Are these comments a true mirror of the Israeli society, or just a small group very much active on the web? The answer is not clear.

Comments could be looked at as the finest example of freedom of speech. What is more democratic than being able to express your opinion anonymously about everything in the world? But the question is not about their essence, but whether they are a good thing in general.

Do these comments depict the true dynamics of society? Ofri Ilani, the former web and science correspondent of Haaretz newspaper doesn't think so.

"One can see the comments as a direct democracy that gives an authentic expression of the public's opinion. But we cannot forget that the vulgar element affects the message. If someone wants his voice to be heard over thousands of other comments, he has to express a radical and simplified opinion. Very few commentators will suggest an intelligent view on the subject matter. Most of them just prefer to write 'Hit them hard!' or something of that nature."

The philologist Rubik Rosenthal adds:

"In periods of wars in Israel, the violent aspects of the comments increase, and the right wing celebrates its total victory of the web. Very few people, who do not hold right wing views, take part in the comments arena."

The more traditional point of view will see these comments as the updated version of the city 'forum', where opinions are expressed in a spontaneous and floating stream of thought. But in Israel, it has long ago got way out of control, as Feder from Ynet testifies:

"Our website receives between 12,000-15,000 comments a day and publishes only 6,000 out of them. News items about bombings, for example, produce much more emotional and usually not very educated comments. In the early days of the website, our position was very liberal and we published almost all comments. But we came to understand that violent comments have become a very dominant culture in our website. We realised that if we continue to allow offensive comments to be aired, we practically encourage the violence in Israel."

Comments are a natural result of the combination between traditional journalism and new media. But while journalists are working with traditional tools and ethics, such as collecting information, working with sources, investigating misdoings and standing personally behind their articles, comments function in a world with no rules - in Israel at least.

An offensive comment can expose someone's personal details, post a public figure's address or state an unpleasant fact about someone else. While journalists function under the assumption that they can be sued for misleading, the commentators are free to write what ever is on their mind.

There is no specific law dealing with offensive comments in Israel. In a couple of cases the Israeli court was asked to interpret the law regarding offensive comments. During the last case, held in 2009, the judges decided not to allow the disclosure of a commentator's identity (so the person offended by him could sue him for slander), and by that shaped the legal approach as a quite tolerant one. The judges wrote the following explanation:

"Despite the drawbacks of the web's anonymous character, one should see it as a derivative of the freedom of speech and the right to privacy".

In the US, for example, it has been the law since 1996 that website managers are legally responsible for the content displayed on their websites and that they must regulate information published in a way that will prevent profanity and slander.

While publishing an offensive comment holds a legal risk for the website, deleting it does not. Consequently, in the States it is easier to delete a comment than to publish it. This is a less democratic move, of course, and a very cautious one, but the fact is that American websites are less 'infected' by offensive comments.

European websites, at least news sites, are also less harsh than Israel. This is partly because different laws apply in different countries, but also because of a smart managing system.

On many British and French websites, such as the Guardian or Le Figaro, a registration process is required in order to comment on an article and an email address in obligatory. This simple measure means that people who otherwise wouldn't will think twice about posting.

Another way to reduce talk back issues is to put comments on a different web page, so one must click in order to see them. This narrows their exposure, allows them to be longer and gives the comments sphere the feeling of a debate forum, rather than a market place.

There is a simple semantic difference too which needs to be addressed. While in most of the rest of the world the term used is "comments", in Israel, as I have explained, they are called "talk-backs".

To talk-back is to express your opinion, rather than to discuss it. To post a talk-back is like spraying anonymous graffiti on a public wall and then running away to the darkness.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).