Either way, if the firing is political persecution, then the appointment was also for a political reason, so the same mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted; and if the appointment was objective, then there is no reason to say that the firing is not objective.

With God’s help, 16 Adar I 5782

To the man from Petah Tikva, greetings,

Without addressing Yaakov Bardugo and his discourse, since I have not had the honor of hearing the pearls of his sayings. His name testifies to him that he comes from a well-known family of sages and great Torah scholars who sat in judgment and spread Torah in the renowned city of Meknes in the far west. His forefathers wrote important books in commentary on the Bible and the Talmud, and he follows in their footsteps in political commentary 🙂

However, Army Radio, as a state broadcasting station, needs to be politically balanced, and to give proper representation to the right no less than to the left. Therefore his appointment as a broadcaster was welcome, balancing out his many colleagues who represented left-wing positions without hesitation.

For that reason, pushing him off to a marginal time slot creates a bad impression of “restoring the old order” 🙂

With blessings, A. H. Levi Najjar, may he live for good long days, amen

It’s a mystery to me who still listens to radio and why. When there’s an interesting segment, it floats around in various places and you can find it online without listening to all the babble. And just listening to random chatter at times when only your ears are free isn’t worth it when there are so many other options (podcasts, audiobooks, YouTube, music, etc.) where you can know in advance roughly what you’re going to hear and what the level is. Who will enlighten me?

To the Petah Tikva resident,

To a network full of leftists they appointed two right-wingers. So that was an appointment meant to bring political balance. And it makes sense. His removal (and the other one’s) is muzzling dissent.
And you should have understood that on your own. … Not especially hard.

To Tirgitz, greetings,

Not everyone has a smartphone attached to them that allows constant access to the internet “when you lie down and when you rise up and when you walk on the way.” There are old-fashioned people (like me, for example) who make do with a non-smart phone (a stupid-phone, in the vernacular 🙂 ), and for them radio is useful.

Even someone who does have a smartphone is supposed to avoid fiddling with it while driving, and a radio can provide music and news that can be heard in the background without distracting from the driving.

And all the more so, radio is needed for soldiers whose commanders do not allow them to keep a mobile phone (except during personal time), whether so they won’t be distracted from military readiness or in order to prevent their being tracked and listened to by enemy spying devices.

Therefore the army, which does not allow its soldiers in general and its drivers in particular to keep a mobile phone, must provide them with balanced radio as well, so that both the right-wing soldier and the left-wing one, the religious and the secular, can find in it the news and commentary, and the culture and art and entertainment suitable for them, each according to his needs.

With blessings, Yaron Fishel Ordner

🙂
Those who can’t or don’t want to choose other alternatives, sure, it makes sense that they’d listen to radio. But generally speaking there’s a lot of stale, low-grade material there (what can one person produce every day for a full hour, especially when it’s not scripted but spontaneous), and the biggest problem is that it’s at 1.0 speed, which is very uncomfortable for listening to such simple content.
Even for someone who does want to listen to radio (because they’re interested in the content, or as you wrote, so they won’t be distracted by listening to something actually interesting), it still isn’t all that logical to listen at every hour דווקא to “whatever happens to be on now.” Someone who does have a stupid-phone can connect the phone to the car and, through the recorded programs on the site, listen to whichever program they want. It seems to me that I don’t know people around me who regularly consume anything that’s broadcast live online (you can’t pause or rewind or speed it up), whether on radio or television. Only sports, really, is more convenient on television for subscribers, because there for some reason, and not in a very explicable way, a main part of the enjoyment is the real-time aspect, and people are also messaging friends while it’s happening, etc.
On the other hand, obviously functioning media is critical in order to reduce corruption in government and society and to drive public processes and so on, and therefore those who consume radio (current events and practical matters) and television news (which is an even more mysterious thing) are doing a great kindness. Maybe there is a categorical imperative on the citizen to stay updated on local news… I make do with a subscription and with reading (less and less) news online, and if there are short video or audio clips there, that’s good too.
All this is trivial and worn-out, of course. And still these media survive. I wonder whether it’s just a matter of social habit or whether I’m missing some especially refined human pleasure here.

To Immanuel,
I don’t understand what you’re angry about. Heaven forbid, I did not support Bardugo’s removal, may he live long and well; I was only pointing out the inconsistency in the criticism of his removal, criticism that was not heard at the time of his appointment. Even if there is justice in what you say, that there is a need for balance in the media, it’s clear to you that that is not what led to the decision to appoint him, and therefore the political appointment was improper. And if that isn’t clear to you, then it also isn’t clear that the removal was political.