Journalist Defends Segal's Private Chats, Criticizes His Netanyahu Coverage
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Journalist Haim Levinson defended political commentator Amit Segal's private correspondence with a Prime Minister's advisor, arguing such exchanges are common. However, Levinson criticized Segal's on-air coverage of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for more critical reporting. He urged Segal to separate his private source relationships from his public journalistic work. Levinson also questioned why other journalists with similar ties to the Prime Minister's office were not facing similar scrutiny.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Journalist Haim Levinson defended Amit Segal's private correspondence with PM advisor Yonatan Urich.
- Levinson criticized Segal's on-air coverage of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Levinson urged Segal to separate private source relationships from public journalistic work.
- Levinson stated that private correspondence from other journalists would likely be similarly embarrassing.
- Levinson questioned why other journalists with close ties to the PM's office face less scrutiny.
- Levinson called on Segal to be more critical of Netanyahu on air.
Journalist Haim Levinson addressed the controversy surrounding leaked correspondence between political commentator Amit Segal and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's advisor, Yonatan Urich. Levinson argued that journalists should not be judged based on private conversations with their sources, but he criticized Segal's coverage of Netanyahu, urging him to "get out of the position, get out of the tribalism."
Levinson, in an audio column for "100m's Territory News," defended Segal's personal relationships with sources, stating that such interactions can include personal conversations, exchanges of opinions, and even consultations. He suggested that private correspondence from other journalists would likely reveal similarly embarrassing content. Levinson recounted his own experience as a political reporter, engaging in conversations and even complimenting politicians on materials they sent, without perceiving a significant ethical issue.
However, Levinson drew a clear line between a journalist's behind-the-scenes relationships and their public work. He contended that Segal's argument that similar conversations would be found with other political parties missed the core of the criticism. "What's on the screen is what matters," Levinson stated, emphasizing that the issue is not Segal's proximity to Urich, but what he perceives as Segal's insufficient critical coverage of Netanyahu during the elections.
Levinson asserted that if Segal had adopted a more critical stance towards Netanyahu on air, the leaked correspondence would not have generated the same sense of problematic closeness. He concluded by directly addressing Segal, calling on him to separate his source relationships from his work as a commentator. Levinson encouraged Segal to continue his private communications but to return to a critical reporting of Netanyahu when warranted, stating, "There is no situation where you have nothing [to criticize]."
Levinson also briefly touched upon publications concerning commentator Yaakov Bardugo, questioning why public discourse focused on Segal rather than other journalists he claims maintain close ties with the Prime Minister's office.
