Role reversal at court
Supreme Court's image may be tarnished as judges imitate politicians
Tony Blair, until recently the British prime minister, chose to bid farewell to his post with a speech on the relationship between politicians and the media. "A vast aspect of our jobs today – outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else, is coping with the media…" he said. "…the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out."
This is ostensibly a surprising statement coming from one who was created by the media. During the 1997 elections Blair enlisted Bill Clinton's media team headed by James Carville and adopted the American campaign in full. In time he realized that headlines are a double-edged sword: He who lives on the edge of the media sword, is also likely to fall at the hands of the media sword.
Ehud Barak, with the same team used by Clinton and Blair, also tried to ride the media tiger's back; he too discovered that it wasn't a paper tiger. At first he was applauded, then came the fall. Barak drew the conclusions and currently maintains his ties with the media via his attorneys rather than spokespersons. He is barely interviewed and prefers background conversations with journalists rather than TV appearances, which convey the message but are not binding.
Media restraint, which has come to characterize key politicians such as Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, contradicts the passion for exposure that has now grabbed leading judges. Since taking up office, Supreme Court Chief Justice Dorit Beinish has been running a delirious campaign as though she had recruited the former advisors of Blair and Barak. Her "associates" attack the prime minister; she makes public addresses against the justice minister, briefs journalists, and prompts retired justices into action via media interviews.
Beinish could be successful politician
Beinish outdid herself in the first High Court session deliberating the petitions against former President Moshe Katsav's plea bargain. Under the guise of legal comments, she dispatched headlines to the media that mocked and scorned the prosecution and the attorney general. These were not the reasonable comments of a person with a legal temperament, but rather, a verbal attack of a person with a political temperament.
Beinish could have been a successful politician. She photographs well, she is eloquent, and she knows how to produce the punch line that generates public applause. Had she appeared on the Knesset podium, she would likely have received high marks from political commentators.
But by doing so from the seat of the chief justice she is undermining the image of one of the most important governing institutions. Perhaps the plea bargain will ultimately stay intact despite the injunction issued Wednesday, yet the attorney general's image will remain tarnished for quite some time.
The greater danger lurking as a result of the High Court complying with the media game's rules stems from the fact that the justices legitimize the criticism leveled at them. Those who brief journalists will inevitably encounter journalists who have been counter-briefed; and those who attack a governing institution in order to mock it, will find themselves attacked by those coming to its aid.
"But we haven't altered any of the lines of accountability between Parliament and the executive. What has changed is the way Parliament is reported or rather not reported," Blair said in his address. Perhaps the judges haven't changed, but their image will change entirely if the reports on them resemble the reports on the Knesset.
Beinish has changed the rules of the game and may irreversibly damage the image of the High Court. She has reversed the roles: While politicians are acting like justices, justices are impersonating politicians. Ehud Barak is impersonating Aharon Barak (retired High Court Justice), and Dorit Beinish is impersonating Limor Livnat.
