The Democratic Party claimed to the court that Channel 14’s activities "do not fall under the scope of objective journalism or freedom of expression in the accepted sense,” and therefore, among other reasons, they refused entry to a Channel 14 broadcaster for an event announcing primary election results. This information comes from a review of the petition filed by the channel against the party and from the party’s response.

The petition was withdrawn by mutual consent because of timing; however, a review of the filings reveals that the Democrats argued the petition should be rejected not only due to the lateness of its submission but also because of the content aired by Channel 14, the channel of lies, propaganda, and incitement serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been accused of bribery. The party particularly highlighted the way the channel covers the judicial and political systems.

The claims raised by the party are consistent with a series of comprehensive analyses published by The Seventh Eye in recent years (with another in-depth study set to be published soon as a full academic paper), according to which Channel 14 is an "anti-journalistic" media outlet that broadcasts propaganda under the guise of news, and whose broadcasts fail to meet even the most basic journalistic standards.

Yesterday (July 20), the Democratic party, led by former Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan, held its primaries, with about 100,000 party members participating. The day before, Avraham Hasson, a channel employee and former spokesperson for Likud Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, currently the channel's Knesset correspondent, contacted Avi Muskal, the Democrats' spokesperson, requesting to come to party headquarters for the election results.

"We would be happy to come to the announcement event tomorrow, accompanied by a photographer," Hasson wrote to Muskal, who replied: "Hi Avraham, you do not have entry clearance. Thanks." The channel filed an urgent court petition to compel the Democrats to let their representative attend the event.

The party's decision to bar the channel's representative from its headquarters, the channel argued in a petition filed through attorneys Yigal Danino and Sarit Bar, "is nothing more than an attempt to use its political power to punish a media outlet based on its positions or the criticism it levels against the party, dealing a devastating blow to the core of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the public's right to know."

The channel pointed to a High Court of Justice decision from October 2022, in which Supreme Court justices ordered the Meretz party to allow Channel 14 personnel to set up a broadcast position at the party's headquarters on the night of the Knesset elections.

"The Supreme Court ruling in the Channel 14 v. Meretz petition established that obstructing a media outlet from accessing an event of significant public interest, when aimed at a specific journalistic entity and that entity alone, is considered an assault on the heart of the public sphere and on freedom of the press," the channel argued.

The Democrats, through attorney Omri Segev, argued in response to a warning letter from the channel that a distinction must be drawn between covering party headquarters during Knesset elections and covering an event announcing internal party election results, where the public's right to know is inherently more limited.

The party further argued that account must be taken of "statements made by the channel's representatives against the party, its members, and the Supreme Court." As reported by The Seventh Eye, Channel 14 has been conducting a consistent and ongoing campaign of incitement against the party and its associates.

According to the response letter, "The channel’s conduct toward the party and its representatives does not fall under the scope of objective journalism or freedom of expression in the accepted sense. This is a coordinated, blatant, and ongoing campaign whose aim is not to 'cover' the event but an active attempt to undermine the party, its values, and its institutions. The channel serves as a political weapon for all intents and purposes, using the guise of journalism to advance a distinctly adversarial agenda against my client."

The channel responded to these claims, arguing that they did not justify barring its representatives from the event. "The respondent is not entitled to appoint itself as a media censor or to determine which media outlets are 'worthy' of coverage based on the extent of its satisfaction with their criticism," argued the channel.

In response to the petition filed by the party through attorneys Omri Segev and Ahiraz Goldstein-Kasher, the Democrats elaborated on the channel's disingenuousness regarding its coverage of the judicial system.

"The plaintiff seeks the protection of this honorable court and the benefit of the fundamental principles of administrative and constitutional law, while itself acting in a systematic, blatant, and persistent manner to subvert the legitimacy of the judicial system in general, and the Supreme Court in particular," they argued.

"One cannot accept a situation where a plaintiff routinely lashes out in judicial proceedings, yet rushes to seek urgent relief the moment it serves his political or media interests. The plaintiff’s pursuit of equitable relief, while simultaneously using his broadcasts to undermine public confidence in the very judicial institution to which he appeals, is tainted by hypocrisy and a blatant lack of good faith."

Ultimately, as noted, the petition was not heard at all, due to the fact that it was filed at the last minute and the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 PM, after the announcement event had begun. The parties submitted a joint motion to withdraw the petition and cancel the hearing, with each party reserving all its arguments.

This article was published in Hebrew on July 21, 2026
Translation: Harriet Brown