Journalists are human. Like all of us, they harbor
preconceptions and biases, which can unconsciously come to
inform their judgment -- and even their reportage.
And it's no less so in the world of Jewish media, perhaps
most evident in the treatment of chareidi or, as commonly
rendered, "ultra-Orthodox" Jews.
The phrase itself is a good place to start. "Ultra"
essentially means "excessively" -- think "ultra-conservative"
or "ultra-liberal." Now, a Jew may believe that chareidim are
"too" Orthodox, but we chareidim don't see ourselves that
way, and the press should certainly not be making such
judgments. While some Jewish media have laudably moved away
from the prejudicial term, the fact that it thrived for so
long (and continues to thrive in many media) is disturbing --
and a good indication of what subconscious assumptions are
more broadly at play.
Subtle anti-chareidi sentiment is no less evident in news
coverage. Not only do chareidim appear in most Jewish
newspapers for the most part only when they misbehave, but
sometimes they are even accused of entirely imaginary
sins.
Take the often-resurrected assertion that, several years ago,
Orthodox Jews threw biological waste at a provocative mixed-
gender prayer group at the Kosel Maarovi. It never happened.
To be sure, there has been ugliness at such "showdowns." But
even wrongdoing should be reported accurately, not enhanced
for shock value. And for some reason, chareidi gedolim's
warnings to their followers to ignore the provocateurs
somehow remain unmentioned in most of the reportage. The
omission may not be intentional, but it is surely detrimental
to the cause of truth.
Then there was the purported rash of "kiddushei
ketanos" in Brooklyn. It, too, turned out to be
imaginary. A reporter was all too readily willing to believe
a shadowy, anonymous "source."
Recall the women forced to sit in the back of Israeli buses?
There was a smidgen of truth to that one, but the separation
of men and women was entirely voluntary, and on a Bnei Brak
bus line used overwhelmingly by chareidim. Now several
Jerusalem bus lines are run that way.
More recently, an article in the New York Jewish Week
reported fears that political extremists in Israel might
resort to violence. The piece featured a photograph of the
dome of the mosque on the Temple Mount with, in the
foreground, looming and ominous, the silhouette of a man's
head and, atop it, a black hat. There, unconscious bias was
compounded by ignorance: If there are any Jews who are pushed
by Palestinian intransigence, hate-mongering and terrorism to
contemplate violence, they are a tiny breakaway from the
mainstream nationalist camp, but most certainly not chareidim
-- whose response to terrorism is teshuvoh and
tefilloh.
Sometimes, sadly, the unfairness seems intentional. A recent
"expose" earlier this year in the national Jewish weekly
Forward concerned an avreich's sefer on the
hashkofoh of romemus Yisroel.
Among the accusations leveled at the book was that it
suggested that Jews employ "deception" and "duplicity" in
dealing with gentiles, a suggestion that is nowhere to be
found in the sefer. The article, moreover, claimed
that the author resorted to "racist sources," including "the
works of Nazi figures" to "back up his arguments" -- when in
fact those works were referenced entirely and only as
examples of antisemitic resentment of Jews.
The reporter who "broke" that "story" may just have been a
careless reader. But his later admission that he considers
the yeshiva world to be "the equivalent of the Taliban,"
hardly inspires confidence in his objectivity.
More disturbing still, the disingenuous "news" article was
awarded a prize from the American Jewish Press
Association.
What's also odd is how infrequently chareidim are represented
on Jewish papers' opinion pages. Although the Jewish media
prides itself on providing a broad diversity of viewpoints,
it is a fairly rare occurrence for chareidi writers -- and
there are more than a few -- to be featured in many non-
chareidi Jewish papers. Only the Jerusalem Post and
two or three of the scores of American Jewish weeklies
feature a regular column by a chareidi writer.
Most Jewish papers, to be sure, do offer Orthodox
representation, but curiously, it is weighed almost entirely
toward the far left end of the Orthodox spectrum, and often
focused on criticizing the chareidi world. Were the chareidi
world anemic and dwindling, the situation might be
understandable. But the phenomenal successes of chareidi
educational institutions and outreach groups -- not to
mention efforts like the upcoming Daf Yomi Siyum HaShas in
which 100,000 Jews are expected to participate -- would seem
to indicate that the chareidi world is, to put it mildly, a
vibrant part of the Jewish scene.
The favored status of "progressive," nominally Orthodox
representatives in the Jewish media is evident, too, in
skewed reportage. Small fringe "movements" are accorded major
status, and (wishfully, one suspects) heralded as the wave of
the Orthodox future -- against all evidence and reasonable
likelihood. Agenda-driven Jewish journalism is particularly
evident when feminism or "alternate lifestyles" are at
issue.
Take an article in the New York Jewish Week about two
years ago, whose headline proclaimed "Orthodox Shul May Break
Taboo." The piece all but predicted that women as baalos
keriah was set to be the Next Big Orthodox Thing. Not
only is it not turning out that way, but the congregation in
question wasn't even Orthodox (it was in fact named in memory
of a late leader of the Conservative movement).
And how many times do Jews have to read breathless accounts
of an "Orthodox rabbi" who shamelessly redefines halacha (not
to mention pesukim) without any mention of the fact
that by that very choice the fellow is something other than
Orthodox?
There's nothing inherently wrong, of course, with a medium
being parochial or partisan; the chareidi press is
unabashedly precisely that. But it doesn't try to hide the
fact. The general Jewish media, by contrast, presents as
objective and offering nonjudgmental reportage. It would be
scandalized to be considered biased in any way against
chareidim.
And so, it needs to do some soul-searching.
Jewish media shouldn't permit its own even unconscious
prejudices to skew how it views fellow Jews who are
uncompromisingly committed to all Jews' mesorah.
Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for
Agudath Israel of America. A version of this column, under a
different title, appeared in The New York Jewish Week.
Reprinted with permission.
