Brought by a group of Israelis of Sephardic descent who felt that the dramatised history of Zionism unfairly minimised their communities' contribution to the movement, the Supreme Court indicated that in this case fairness was "irrelevant"; broadcast could not be censored, but "another aspect of the issue should be presented".
[7] In 1982, a decision by the IBA to ban interviews with any supporters of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in the West Bank and Gaza was struck down; this case was the making of the now-legendary civil rights lawyer Amnon Zichroni.
[7] After the 1996 revision appeared, a study by Yitzhak Roeh, a media studies academic at HUJI called it an "anachronism" and "irrelevant"[8] Since then, right-wing groups have frequently used the Nakdi Document as a basis for documentation of what they see as media bias; the two most high-profile incidents have been litigation surrounding the broadcast of Avishai Raviv's "swearing-in ceremony" with Eyal at Baruch Goldstein's grave, and the campaign to get rid of Gabi Gazit, whom they saw as serially breaking "the policies of public radio".
Recently, concern that the language expected of the Israeli media was not sufficiently neutral included the complaint that the phrase "East Jerusalem" were prohibited by the guidelines.
After Ariel Sharon's incapacitation, its ability to provide guidance balance between the private matter of his health and the public's right to know was found wanting.