How does Israel's public broadcasting compare to other countries?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Israel’s public broadcaster, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC or “Kan”), is a relatively new successor to the Israel Broadcasting Authority and remains an EBU member that enables Israel to compete in Eurovision; the EBU has repeatedly tied membership to having an independent public broadcaster that provides both news and entertainment [1] [2]. In 2025–2026 Kan has faced sustained political pressure: proposed laws would sell or shrink its news arm, cut budgets from roughly NIS 800m toward NIS 500m, and risk EBU ineligibility — developments that critics say threaten press freedom [3] [4] [5].
1. Public broadcaster by history and role: how Israel compares to peers
Israel replaced the long‑standing Israel Broadcasting Authority with the IPBC in 2017; the change mirrors reforms elsewhere where states consolidated public media but retained a remit for both news and culture — a condition the European Broadcasting Union uses to determine membership and thus participation in pan‑European events such as Eurovision [1] [2]. Unlike many Western public broadcasters that enjoy statutory insulation and stable funding, Israel’s IPBC emerged from a contested political reform and operates in a crowded media market where commercial channels lead ratings [1] [6].
2. Independence under strain: domestic politics versus public‑service norms
Multiple recent government initiatives explicitly target Kan’s news operations, proposing privatization, budget cuts and transfer of news divisions — moves that leading opposition figures and press‑freedom advocates call an attack on freedom of expression [3] [4]. Critics argue these steps would narrow Israel’s public‑media space and put the IPBC’s statutory independence — the same independence the EBU expects of members — at risk [3] [5].
3. International stakes: Eurovision, EBU rules and membership consequences
Israel’s EBU membership is the practical reason it competes in Eurovision; the EBU requires members to provide both news and entertainment services, so breaking up or neutering Kan could jeopardize that membership and Israel’s place in Europe’s broadcasting networks [2] [1]. Recent EBU discussions over Israel’s participation triggered high‑profile boycotts by several national public broadcasters in 2025, demonstrating how domestic media governance can have immediate international ramifications [7] [8].
4. Press‑freedom indicators and comparative signals
Independent monitors and journalists report rising constraints on reporting inside Israel, with censorship, legal pressure and self‑censorship increasing amid the Gaza war; think‑tank and NGO analyses document sharp drops in certain mainstream coverage of the humanitarian crisis (e.g., low percentages of Palestinian‑focused visuals in prime‑time coverage cited by Molad) — signals that differentiate Israel from countries where public broadcasters sustain more pluralistic wartime coverage [9]. Available sources do not present systematic quantitative cross‑country comparisons of editorial independence across public broadcasters; they do, however, show Israel slipping in press‑freedom rankings and drawing acute domestic contestation over public broadcasting structures [10] [9].
5. Government narrative and alternative viewpoints
The government and some coalition lawmakers frame reforms as necessary to reduce waste, boost competition and rationalize a public broadcaster that emerged from a flawed predecessor; supporters assert public broadcasting must adapt to a diverse commercial ecosystem [1] [4]. Opponents — including opposition leaders quoted in reporting — call the same measures a politicized attempt to silence critics and “terrorize” news staff, framing the reforms as deliberate shrinking of independent public media [3] [4].
6. Practical consequences for audiences and international partners
If Kan’s news functions are sold off or brought under tighter government control, Israel could lose EBU membership, imperiling participation in cultural and technical exchange platforms and events — a concrete loss already feared by commentators who link internal policy moves to Eurovision eligibility [5] [1]. Domestically, cuts and privatization would reallocate public resources toward commercial actors and potentially reduce multi‑language and outreach services long provided by Israel’s public system [1] [11].
7. What reporting leaves unanswered
Current reporting documents political proposals, EBU rules and advocacy responses but does not provide full, independently audited projections of how proposed budget cuts or asset sales would change programming lineups or technical EBU compliance step‑by‑step; available sources do not mention a government white paper showing neutral cost‑benefit modeling for the reforms [3] [4] [5].
Conclusion: Israel’s public broadcasting sits at the intersection of civic information, international affiliation and partisan politics. The EBU’s membership rules create a hard external constraint that domestic actors can trigger by altering Kan’s remit; whether Israel’s public media will continue to resemble the protected, pluralistic public broadcasters of some European peers depends on political decisions now moving through Knesset committees and the balance between reformist arguments and press‑freedom objections [1] [3] [4].