Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Mar 15, 2015
Yated has to run ad for Haredi womens party
Update: Breaking News!
The Supreme Court just overturned the earlier decision. Yated can continue to reject the advertising by Bzchutan, based on the fact that they can advertise in other places and this goes against the "spiritual line" of the Yated paper.
source: BHOL, Haredim10 and INN
*************************************
Possibly one of the most interesting developments in the elections is going to take place between today and tomorrow.
Bzchutan, the Haredi womens party, has sued the haredi newspapers for not agreeing to run their advertisements. Specifically, they sued Yom lYom (Shas affiliated) and Yated Neeman (UTJ affiliated) for not running their ads.
The claim against them was they these papers are the only channels available to the Haredi constituents, people Bzchutan considers to be potential voters, yet that avenue is unfairly being blocked from them.
The court agreed, accepting their arguments, and ordered Yated and Yom to run at least one ad for Bzchutan between now and election day.
source: Ynet
I don't know if they will be allowed to run an ad with no images, or if they have to also include any images submitted as part of the ad, even images of women.
Either way, this could be a watershed event, from a haredi social perspective.
I still doubt it will actually happen. I think the Yated will find a way to not put the ad in - they will claim a glitch or just ignore them. Then, after the fact, Bzchutan will sue, and even win, but by then it will be too late from an election benefit.
Some organization has now started a petition to allow Yated to refuse the ad
The Supreme Court just overturned the earlier decision. Yated can continue to reject the advertising by Bzchutan, based on the fact that they can advertise in other places and this goes against the "spiritual line" of the Yated paper.
source: BHOL, Haredim10 and INN
*************************************
Possibly one of the most interesting developments in the elections is going to take place between today and tomorrow.
Bzchutan, the Haredi womens party, has sued the haredi newspapers for not agreeing to run their advertisements. Specifically, they sued Yom lYom (Shas affiliated) and Yated Neeman (UTJ affiliated) for not running their ads.
The claim against them was they these papers are the only channels available to the Haredi constituents, people Bzchutan considers to be potential voters, yet that avenue is unfairly being blocked from them.
The court agreed, accepting their arguments, and ordered Yated and Yom to run at least one ad for Bzchutan between now and election day.
source: Ynet
I don't know if they will be allowed to run an ad with no images, or if they have to also include any images submitted as part of the ad, even images of women.
Either way, this could be a watershed event, from a haredi social perspective.
I still doubt it will actually happen. I think the Yated will find a way to not put the ad in - they will claim a glitch or just ignore them. Then, after the fact, Bzchutan will sue, and even win, but by then it will be too late from an election benefit.
Some organization has now started a petition to allow Yated to refuse the ad
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Labels:
haredim,
women,
yated ne'eman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Israeli court makes a ruling unfairly singling out chareidim? Yawn.
ReplyDelete"unfairly singling out haredim" - please explain. who was singled out? The womens party was discriminated against and they sued these specific papers.
ReplyDeleteSince when does a newspaper have to publish every ad submitted to them? Would Haaretz have to run an ad for Otzma? Unlike some other media forms, newspapers do not have an obligation of impartiality.
DeleteI dont know the legal details of what they are allowed to reject, but I do know they are legally limited by policy of discrimination just like any other service. I guess on any dispute of whether something is discrimination or "appropriate for the readership" is something that would be determined by the courts
ReplyDeleteHence my original comment!
ReplyDeleteReading the article, it seems like it's only because they're women. Which leads to the ridiculous situation that they can legitimately refuse to publish ads for Bayit Yehudi, who they don't agree with, because it's run by a man. But they can't refuse for Bzchutan, who they don't agree with, because it's run by a woman.
Does this sound sane to you?
The article said that the ads were text only and deviated from the newspaper's guidelines only in being a political party of which the newspaper does not approve because it promotes women running for office.
ReplyDeleteThe article said that the ads were text only and deviated from the newspaper's guidelines only in being a political party of which the newspaper does not approve because it promotes women running for office.
ReplyDeletethe argument they used might not apply to BY. this is bzchutan's target audience, and they are being locked out because of discrimination. It is not BY's target audience, so not allowing them to advertise might not be discrimination. On the other hand, maybe BY would be able to make a case that they are being discriminated against as kippot srugot community and as a religious readership it is also a target audience, but I doubt a judge would buy that. Plus, BY has more venues by which to reach their target audiences, while bzchutan does not
ReplyDeleteAlso, this sentence
ReplyDeleteמדובר במודעה בעלת אופי ציבורי, המיועדת בעיקרה לנשים מהמגזר החרדי", נימק השופט את החלטתו. "יש בפרסומה חשיבות ציבורית לא מבוטלת, ואולי אף מוגברת - נוכח איסור הפליה ועקרון השוויון בבחירות".
is very worrisome. It sounds like he's basing his judgement not on the law, but on what he feels the מגזר החרדי needs to hear. And even if these papers are "the only channels available to the Haredi constituents" (debatable), why does that change the law?
BY was an example, the point is that newspapers have no obligation to publish ads for people/services/parties they disagree with, and I don't see why that should change just because a) they are female and b) they've chosen to target an audience whose newspapers don't like them. Why should that place an obligation on those newspapers?
ReplyDeleteThe article said that the ads were text only and deviated from the newspaper's guidelines only in being a political party of which the newspaper does not approve because it promotes women running for office.
ReplyDeleteThe article said that the ads were text only and deviated from the newspaper's guidelines only in being a political party of which the newspaper does not approve because it promotes women running for office.
ReplyDelete