The Responsibility of Newspaper Publishers for Sex Advertisements

In this article for The Seventh Eye, published on October 31, 2004, Gili Drob-Hiestien, Executive Director of the Yuval Ne'eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security at Tel Aviv University, describes a legal saga regarding sex advertising in newspapers, in which legal action did not stop the publication of prostitution advertisements and the Knesset intervened. Eventually, says Drob-Hiestien, progress was made and newspapers refused to advertise sex services.

This is a story of hypocrisy, tons of hypocrisy. And money, tons of money. The sex industry has been flourishing in Israel for years, and major newspapers such as Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv have made a major contribution to the industry by publishing sex advertisements in their advertising columns. The Schocken newspaper chain is also not free of involvement in this shady but lucrative business. In the late 1990s, the local newspaper Ha'ir devoted entire pages in its column Kach-Ten ("Give and Take") to vulgar sex advertisements, some including pictures of naked women supposedly making crude and blatant comments. Public agreements and legislation have had no impact on the advertising marketers in the newspapers. In mid-September, however, the court intervened, finding that the newspapers were acting illegally. Yedioth Ahronoth Ltd., Maariv Information Publishing Ltd., and Schocken Chain Ltd. were convicted of publishing advertisements in their newspapers relating to the provision of prostitution services. The list of those convicted also included the directors of these corporations: Yosef Wershavsky, CEO of the Schocken Chain; Gil Gilat, CEO of Ha'ir; Ron Kleinfeld, CEO of Ma'ariv; and Ronen Shapira, director of Yedioth Ahronoth's advertising section. Alexander Doron, who served as a sports and education correspondent and was responsible for drafting and censoring the sex advertisements in Maariv, was cleared of the charges against him. All were convicted under the law prohibiting the publication of advertisements for sex services as an integral part of the newspaper and requiring publication only in the form of a separate sheet to be provided solely at the buyer's express request.

The indictment was presented two years ago and states that the Schocken chain published 30 advertisements for the provision of prostitution services, Maariv published 250 and Yedioth Ahronoth published about 500. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges, based on various preliminary arguments such as "defense based on justice" and the claim that the indictment sheet was not defined. Judge Daniel Be'eri rejected these claims, stating, "It is quite obvious that these advertisements offer the use of a human (woman's) body in order to gratify sexual desire in return for payment." He also rejected the request to acquit the defendants on the basis of reliance, i.e., the argument that they acted on the basis of erroneous legal advice. "I do not believe that the amendment to the law, viz. article 205C, is unclear. This article is completely comprehensible to those engaged in the receipt of advertisements, among others. Those responsible for this area understand no less than attorneys, and almost certainly more so, what is the nature of the advertisement and what lies behind it." Judge Be'eri found the newspapers guilty of the offense which provides that "a person who publishes an advertisement regarding the provision of prostitution services in which the provider of the service is not a minor is liable to six months' imprisonment." The sentence will be given at a later date, and it only remains to be seen whether the court will be successful where others have failed.

The story begins in 1995. A public committee, headed by the late Hanna Zemer, examined the issue of the publication of sex advertisements in the press and recommended that newspaper owners and editors refrain from publishing ads that appear to relate to the sex industry. The committee felt that the press should not contribute to developing the prostitution industry or make a living from it. Journalist Gail Hareven, a member of the committee, commented that there is a form of liberalism that she cannot accept: maintaining a prostitution industry from which the press earns a living. Journalist Yehoshua Ben-Porat noted, "newspapers that respect themselves and their readers do not publish pornographic advertisements." Committee chairperson Hanna Zemer opposed legislation obliging newspaper editors not to publish sex advertisements. "It is important for us to have clean journalism and not to have indictments brought against newspaper editors," she commented (Haaretz, July 13, 1995).

However, the recommendations had no effect, and the newspapers continued to publish a large number of advertisements with blatant wording. Eventually, the Knesset decided to intervene. MK Hanan Porat, who at the time headed the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, argued that despite the undertaking by the newspapers to refrain from publishing such advertisements, they had failed to do so. Porat initiated an amendment to the penal code, which was adopted in 1998. Once again, newspaper editors were warned not to continue publishing sex advertisements, and once again, they ignored the warning, which was now a legal provision. The state prosecutor's office began to examine the issue. For their part, the newspapers tried to outsmart the law, continuing to publish sex advertisements, but adopting the term "hosting." Attorney Gloria Weissman, head of the Criminal Law Division in the state prosecutor's office, commented, "It seems that the newspapers that are continuing to publish the advertisements believe that the intention of the legislator can be circumvented by means of a semantic trick. The trick of changing the title of the column cannot eliminate criminal liability. At the very least, this exercise is tantamount to turning a blind eye" (Haaretz, November 30, 1998). Legal commentator Moshe Negbi explains, "The press simply ignored the law openly, sending out the message that obeying the law is a function of economic viability. Worse still, the press constantly tells the whole world to maintain the rule of law. You cannot condemn as immoral something that you yourself publish two pages later on. This is a double standard." Professor Asher Maoz and Professor Amos Shapira of Tel Aviv University also note the hypocrisy that is apparent "when a newspaper takes on the role of preacher in its editorials, while making a living from this kind of thing in its own back yard." According to Maoz, "Newspapers will refrain from publishing an explicit advertisement for prostitution, but they publish an advertisement for a massage, when we all know that they are not talking about a massage for an aching back. The camouflage is vital, since otherwise the newspaper will be breaking the law. The camouflage reflects the fact that the newspaper does not feel comfortable with what it is doing."

Evidence of this discomfort can be found in the newspapers themselves. Yedioth Ahronoth added a general remark to its sex ads in the so-called "Hosting" column: "The editors of the column emphasize that advertisements offering prostitution services will not be accepted." A similar comment also appeared in Ha'ir. From 2002, the rubric "Conversations for Adults Only" included such advertisements as "A new mistress has arrived from abroad to train and educate just you, discreetly." The advertising columns in Maariv also published advertisements under the heading "Conversations for Adults Only." The heading "Healing and Massage" included such advertisements as "North Tel Aviv, pretty girl, superstar quality, for a complete massage in a luxurious suite." Here, too, the newspaper was careful to add its own remark: "Following the amendment to the penal code, the newspaper announces that advertisements offering prostitution services will not be accepted."

These remarks were completely divorced from reality, however. MK Zahava Galon, who headed a parliamentary commission of inquiry on the subject of the trade in women, notes the contempt for human dignity, as well as the possible link between the publication of sex advertisements and encouraging trade in women: "The verdict (of the Tel Aviv court) confirms that the newspapers have become partners in the trade in women. There is a clear connection between publishing advertisements for hosting and sex services and the increasing scale of this phenomenon. The availability of the ads creates demand and augments the phenomenon of trade in women." During the hearings, MK Rachamim Maloul, a member of the commission, criticized the representatives of the press: "On your front pages you try to educate people, but on your back pages you become part of the same prostitution industry and trade in women... You want the very high income, but you are failing in your public role. You are certainly part of this industry, which is flourishing in no small measure thanks to you."

The newspapers had good reasons for refusing to give up this source of income. Ron Kleinfeld, former CEO of Maariv, gave the commission figures from January 2002: "In Maariv, we decided to cut our income by about 700,000 to one million sheqels a month. Accordingly, and partly because of requests from Members of Knesset, we decided to hide this stuff more and to make it as small and marginal as possible. Our advertisements don't talk about hosting, escorts, or prostitution, only about 'massage.' On the other hand, we 'contributed' millions of sheqels a month to Yedioth Ahronoth, Ha'ir, and other newspapers... If it wasn't so amusing, I would bring the people who market these advertisements and they would tell you that Maariv is just the latest sucker, because it is losing money. We are talking here about a scale of advertising budgets that is bigger than that of the banks or the car companies, for example. You have to remember that the other advertisers have alternative channels, such as radio and television. The amounts involved are simply huge... I'm talking about millions every month."

At a further meeting of the commission, some two years later in January 2004, Amos Schocken attempted to correct the impression of a connection between this money and the situation of the newspapers and journalists: "I think that claiming that the financial scope of the advertisements by escort agencies or such services is analogous to that of the car industry is going much too far. The amounts involved in Ha'ir are tens of thousands of sheqels, which is much less than the main economic sectors. But in terms of the newspapers' budgets, these amounts are significant... Even so, if they weren't there, I think the newspapers would shrink a bit more, dismiss a few more journalists, and downsize." Other publishers have also admitted that halting the publication of sex advertisements would cause financial damage to the newspapers, whose economic positions were already weakened after Channel Two began to broadcast and after the rise in the cost of paper. Ofer Nimrodi, publisher of Maariv, admitted that the main consideration for publishing sex advertisements in his paper was financial (Haaretz, June 8, 1995). Moshe Negbi comments, "Newspapers existed before the sex advertisements began to appear, and they managed to survive. We believe that the survival of the press is highly important, but why do we want the press to exist? If the ends justify the means, then the ends are distorted."

Another interesting fact should also be noted here: the price of sex advertisements is higher than that of regular advertisements. Lea Grinfter-Gold of the Toda'a Institute told the parliamentary commission, "It turns out that not just anyone can submit an advertisement for hosting... You have to go through an advertising agency first, and apart from that, the cost is four or more times that of a regular advertisement. In other words, the newspapers are greedy when it comes to this area." Zahava Galon thus deduces that "a self-employed prostitute cannot afford to pay the prices demanded for these advertisements...Only organized prostitution could afford to publish advertisements at these prices and on this scale. The high price means that pimps and people who run escort agencies and are interested in advertising enjoy an advantage." Moshe Negbi adds, "One of the vital components in the flourishing industry of escort agencies is the fact that the clients know of its existence through advertisements. This means that the newspapers are a vital component in the existence of a criminal and immoral industry. In a way, the situation is even worse. This situation means that the newspapers are partners in profits and have a stake in the existence of this industry. The three major media corporations in Israel become interested parties in the existence of trade in women in Israel and in the survival of a phenomenon that is both illegal and morally despicable."

Attorney Naomi Lebenkorn of the Assistance Center for Foreign Workers at the Hebrew University suggests a connection between the manner that newspapers cover the phenomenon of the trade in women and the profits they gain from the advertisements. She believes that the shallow nature of these reports and the tendency to adopt a sensationalist approach, including blunt descriptions and open pictures of women, is due to the big money that the newspapers make from the industry. "This is why they only make mild protests against this industry. And one of the reasons why there has not been sufficient progress in fighting this phenomenon is the almost total silence of the press. When they do write something, it usually focuses on poor Natasha, or on the arrest of the latest heartless Sasha." Lebenkorn makes another charge against the newspapers: "If these were women who were working of their own free will and publishing advertisements in the press by themselves, we might make less noise. But the newspapers are providing an excellent service for pimps and sex traders, and many of the women in these advertisements are not there of their own free will. The vast majority of these advertisements are not published by the women who provide prostitution services but by their employers—a long list of pimps, human traders, and exploiters of one kind or another."

"Many of these women come from abroad. They do not arrive in Israel by clicking their heels like [Dorothy]. They are brought here as part of a trade that is often accompanied by violence and rape. In many cases, they work in the industry against their wishes. The advertisements emphasize their origins—"Erotic black woman," "New girls from Turkey," or "Exotic woman from the Far East for a pleasurable night." However, the court verdict completely ignores the tangible impact these advertisements have on the victims of this trade: their body is described in details that encourage the rape of women, many of whom do not wish to work as prostitutes but have been forced to do so. When the front pages of the same newspaper carry the latest story about women traders being arrested, it is hard to argue that the defendants did not know exactly what lay behind these advertisements."

Lebenkorn also notes the problematic status of the newspapers as agents in the woman-pimp-client triangle. The clients are depicted as unfortunate and needy—people with "needs," whose reactions cannot be predicted if they fail to get their pound of flesh. This kind of approach was presented by Attorney Mibi Muzar, who represented the Schocken chain and Yedioth Ahronoth in one of the court sessions: "We create a situation where people who need this cannot get this information, and then we push them back again, I don't know into what corner, to try to find this type of information" (para. 194). In other words, the newspapers are simply protecting us. If people cannot find what they want in the pages of the newspaper, they might lose control and start raping the women of Israel in the streets. Experience shows that such arguments are always raised by those who profit from the sex industry: "We are only here for the clients;" "There is a demand and we bring the supply;" "We are just agents;" "We are actually saving you from mass rape." The learned counsel seems to have forgotten that what he describes as "this information" are actually flesh and blood women. It is regrettable that the court did not even mention this aspect in passing in its verdict.

This is not the only criticism that may be noted regarding the verdict, important though it is. Naomi Lebenkorn notes a grave flaw: "It enables the defendants to take shelter under Article 205, which is a relatively mild clause with a maximum of six months' imprisonment. Yet, the Supreme Court rulings explicitly state that every link in the chain of prostitution can and should be prosecuted for the offense of trading in women. And newspapers form an integral part of this chain: they solicit and seduce clients, and thus make a significant contribution to the industry. It cannot be argued that the trade in women would disappear without these advertisements, but they undoubtedly contribute significantly to its expansion."

Journalists at these newspapers include a good number of leading women journalists who have social and feminist agendas. Surprisingly, they were slow to protest and indifferent to the issue. They were not particularly disturbed by the sex advertisements. Some are afraid that they may lose their job if they protest and argue that they are not responsible for the advertisements, passing the buck onto the chief editors and publishers. Attempts to talk to the chief editors of the newspapers usually met with refusal. They prefer to pass on responsibility to the publishers and managers of the advertising departments. The only one who agreed to respond was Amnon Dankner, editor of Maariv: "This whole prosecution is another example of the negligent and flawed functioning of the law enforcement system. When the law was amended, we wrote to the attorney-general and detailed our interpretation of the law. We received confirmation that the letter had been received and were promised that they would inform us of his position." In his verdict, Judge Be'eri agreed that "A defect indeed occurred insofar as the attorney-general failed to respond to the letter from the editor of Maariv for a very protracted period... The authority was indeed wrong to delay giving its answer, but the source of the request also contributed thereto by failing to remind the authority or to clarify why the response was tardy in arriving." Regarding the role of the editor, Dankner states, "In principle, a newspaper can publish articles and then have advertisements next to them that say the opposite. I apply moral standards to the section for which I am responsible—the editorial section. I am not involved with the advertising section, and it's better that way." The publishers' silence regarding their responsibility is deafening. The collective evasion of the press system is confirmed by the fact that the newspapers chose not to emphasize their own disgrace in reporting on the verdict, confining themselves to laconic reports on the precedent-setting ruling on the inside pages.

The good news is that the verdict has been effective. Since it was handed down, newspapers have refused to accept advertisements offering sex services.