Thus, Canetti, who was the editor of the program, in her reference to Steif's journalistic activity in the context of Naveh:
"[...] I think an employee of Army Radio who does her job, after all, what is it, what is the job of a reporter? It's to go and bring stories. She did her job. She went to tell a story. That's why Army Radio can't shake off it."
(Par. p. 459, paras. 8-10)
Shachar, who was the responsible person (head of the current affairs programs department at Army Radio), also noted favorably Steif's conduct after bringing the information to Army Radio. She also noted in her testimony that the special broadcast was part of the station's news activity. Therefore, Shahar was also uncomfortable with the state's disavowal of Shteif:
"The State Attorney's Office didn't ask my opinion, neither as a manager nor as a journalist, whether to represent Hadas or not. It wasn't brought to my doorstep and I wasn't asked about it. As I said, as soon as I heard this, my stomach hurt and I didn't like this decision, to say the least. If the State Attorney's Office examined everything that is written here and says that Hadas's actions constitute a serious deviation from the norms of behavior, and I quote this is the opinion of the state, when I read the minutes of Hadas and Hani, I think that Hadas did not commit a criminal offense, but this is a legal question and I don't know what my role is in this incident."
(Par. p. 299, paras. 30-35)
- It should be emphasized that in direct tortious conduct, there is an element of guilt. On the other hand, in imposing vicarious liability, there is no element of guilt, but rather an action that was done for the benefit of the employer. In our case, we are dealing with the news dimension that was at the heart of Steif's journalistic activity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that policy considerations that support the existence of a free and strong investigative journalist lead to the conclusion that in this unique case, vicarious responsibility of the state for Steif's activity should be recognized, both in view of the fact that it is improper performance of the job and even if it is an act of criminal nature. Leaving investigative journalists without cover from the employer (even if they erred in the way they conducted) is liable to cause severe damage to the existence of investigative journalism. This was clearly evident from Elkabetz's testimony in cross-examination:
"Adv. Zilberbaum: Okay. Now you know that Army Radio, not Army Radio, the State of Israel denies Hadas in this story and claims that there is no vicarious responsibility.