A press event in Jerusalem took an unprecedented turn as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office exercised tight control over questions, sparking accusations of a growing media blackout. At a joint briefing with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Prime Minister’s Office determined who could ask questions and in what language, prompting critics to warn of a “media dictatorship.” The event, held at the Prime Minister’s Office, saw only four questions invited: two from Israeli reporters and two from German reporters. It later emerged that the PMO had pre-selected which Israeli journalists could pose questions—Tamir Morag of Channel 14, known for often getting the first question, and Maariv correspondent Anna Barsky.
Beyond selecting questioners, the PMO instructed that questions not be asked in Hebrew, and Barsky was told to direct her inquiry to Merz, a scheduling-related constraint according to the PMO. Netanyahu’s spokesman, Ziv Agmon, claimed he had not chosen the questioners and that the PMO staff had. In a subsequent reversal, Agmon asserted that he had never restricted questions to the Prime Minister and that Netanyahu faced ample questioning, though one selected reporter said colleagues were told otherwise.
This episode marks an extraordinary departure from norms, with the PMO dictating who may ask questions and to whom those questions are addressed. Critics suggest the office feared questions about Netanyahu’s pardon request from President Isaac Herzog or about the nomination of Roman Gofman as Mossad chief—controversial topics given concerns about Gofman’s experience and qualifications. Netanyahu has shown reluctance to publicly discuss his pardon request in detail.
During the press conference, an informal, unscripted Hebrew question from Channel 13’s Gil Tamari—whether Netanyahu would retire if pardoned—left the prime minister momentarily flustered. He responded firmly with a blunt “No” and then commented to Merz in English that “the reporters are very concerned about his future.”
Tensions between Netanyahu’s office and the Israeli press have deteriorated, with the PMO effectively boycotting much of the media. The office has offered few formal responses, minimal briefings, and updates mainly to outlets and reporters considered sympathetic to the prime minister. The PMO did not respond to requests for comment. Critics argue this behavior undermines the appearance of a free press.
Security measures outside the PMO were unusually stringent. Reporters faced lengthy delays and thorough searches, including disassembly of equipment and even confiscation of a journalist’s laptop due to unspecified concerns, a decision described as perplexing by veterans who had previously traveled with Netanyahu. Agmon stated he had no knowledge of these specifics.
The PMO defends its actions by denying any attempt to block questions. Agmon maintains that the press remains free and that claims of media harm are false. The episode also underscores wider concerns about access: the PMO recently bypassed including Israeli reporters on Netanyahu’s plane for a trip—framed by officials as a security and efficiency measure but viewed by many as another sign of distancing from the press.
Overall, observers question whether current practices genuinely reflect a commitment to a free press, given the difficulties in obtaining straightforward answers from the PMO. The interview’s aftermath leaves lingering questions about transparency, media access, and accountability in government communications.
