In Israel, police are investigating Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for allegedly accepting bribes or illegal campaign contributions in the late 1990s from an American businessman. The police requested — and an Israeli court granted — a gag order on media coverage of this investigation. But that gag order is the latest victim of the Internet and global media.
Ostensibly, this gag order was intended to enable Israeli police to continue their investigation unimpeded. The Israeli media are notorious for reporting every scrap of information, rumor and innuendo. In this case, the gag order did not stop leaks and speculation about the case, including what may or may not have been learned, the potential political impact — even though details were missing and few hard facts were available.
The Israeli court gag order left the media here winking, nodding, and nudging their audiences by saying, “We know what is going on, but you don’t.” But even that didn’t last. On May 6 the New York Post broke the story of the name of the alleged “bag man” for Olmert cash payments. They followed it up on May 7 with a few new details. Also on May 7 the New York Times weighed in with a better story.
By May 8, the pressure on the Israeli cops and courts from domestic media was too much, and the gag order was partially lifted. What kind of pressure? Well, the Israeli was media saying things like, “We can’t tell you what’s going on, but go to the New York Post.”
The gag order was officially lifted May 8 at 11 p.m. Israeli time. Minutes later the media went public with stories that had been sitting in the can for two days, and Olmert made a statement on TV addressing the matter and declaring his innocence.
A few observations about this incident:
- Domestic gag orders are useless. If it wasn’t obvious before, today media is global. Everyone with a computer has access to the world’s news. Just one day of reporting got this story out, and everyone in the country knew what was going on. Domestic Israeli bloggers worried that they could run afoul of the law if they linked to the Post story, but they should not have worried — everyone found out about it.
- Gag orders and political agendas don’t mix. All week there were selective, damaging leaks hyping the story and the threat to Olmert — who is currently the subject of other ongoing investigations.
- There was very little original reporting on this story, despite the hype. The Post and then Times stories are it. For all the hundreds (if not thousands) of references to the story now online, the vast majority point to the Post story and comment on it.
- Being first is still crucial. The Times story is better than the Post’s, but the Post’s was first — and that’s where everyone links.
…As for Olmert: It seems likely that he will survive this scandal as he has survived others in the past.
