When I was compiling yesterday's roundup, I was confused by a pair of posts that were written back to back on Cross-Currents and decided to discuss them separately. Jonathan Rosenblum's Think Green was an excellent post discussing, of all things, environmentalism and charedim. While noting accurately the reasons charedim (and in truth, many people) are wary of environmentalists, he still makes an excellent case for people doing their part to make the world better for the next generations.
Immediately following, however, was a post by R' Avi Shafran about The Jewish Week and charedim. While Shafran's overall thrust was fine (the Jewish Week should have a charedi on its editorial board to give a different viewpoint), his arguments were troubling in their onesidedness, particularly as he starts the article by complainging about JW editor Gary Rosenblatt by saying "issues like those Gary raises (like most issues) do have two sides."
One of the issues that troubled me was Shafran's seeming desire to have it both ways: While requesting that a supposed inclusive paper such as the Jewish Week have a charedi member to present that point of view better, he argues that the Charedi papers need to have no such thing as they make no claims of inclusiveness. While on the face this is a valid argument, the question becomes why this is true. Why can't any of the Charedi papers try to be inclusive, try to present other points of view? Why is that onus only placed on everyone else?
If one of the largest criticisms of the Charedi world is its inability to respect other viewpoints, wouldn't it make sense for them to show that in fact, this is not the case? Shafran decries being "accused of wielding influence beyond our numbers (even of being, as per Gary’s title, “All Powerful”) and of poisoning the wells of “tolerance.”" Wouldn't the best solution to this be to not demand a seat at the Jewish Week, but to show tolerance and understanding?
Why can't any of the Charedi papers try to be inclusive, try to present other points of view?
ReplyDeleteThe whole purpose of a Chareidi paper is to only show one side. They don't want to know about "shtus" (not my word). Chareidim read Chareidi papers precisely because they only present "filtered" news.
I actually thought of that: In other words, the purpose of a Charedi paper is to present only what they "need to know". However, even within that, wouldn't it be wise to present why other Jews have chosen a different approach, if only to promote tolerance among Jews?
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this (especially during the 9 Days) but I don't really think the mainstream Chareidi media is interested in showing why other Jews have chosen a different approach. I get the impression that they think their way is best and MO or others are 2nd best. If other views were presented, Chas V'shalom their own kids would choose one of those paths. I think that they feel that being insular protects them from kids going off the derech (or going off "their" derech).
ReplyDeletewouldn't it be wise to present why other Jews have chosen a different approach, if only to promote tolerance among Jews?
ReplyDeleteCome now...now you're just being utopian.
Just bec you decide to play by a certain set of rules does not mean that everyone else needs to abide by them.
Not saying that they have to - but if he's requesting that the "other side" live up to certain standards, shouldn't he encourage those standards on "his side"?
ReplyDeleteSaraK - That very well could be. I'm asking why Shafran thinks it's okay to ask that of the Jewish Week while excusing the same from the Charedi publications.
ReplyDeletebut if he's requesting that the "other side" live up to certain standards, shouldn't he encourage those standards on "his side"?
ReplyDeleteI'm asking why Shafran thinks it's okay to ask that of the Jewish Week while excusing the same from the Charedi publications.
It's called a double standard. And it's OK because "we need to shield our community and our children"
Oh, of course. Which makes his request hypocritical, even when on the face of it it seems perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteOne does what they think is correct irrespective of whether or not it will be reciprocated.
Think about it...what's the issue, that "they" are not "you"? What difference should that make as far as the action you take?
Now, Rabbi Shafran seems to take it as a given that the Jewish Week is the sort of paper that should by definition put forth both sides of the story. I have no idea why he thinks that to be true or if that is/is not true.
Whichever the case may be the paper should conduct itself in the manner that they decide is their chosen course, their only "responsiblity" is to be consistent in that course.
I'm asking why Shafran thinks it's okay to ask that of the Jewish Week while excusing the same from the Charedi publications
ReplyDeleteAssuming they are different paapers with different standards this is a perfectly reasonable request.
Again I don't know that his assumption is correct.
Not the same. It's one thing to live up to a certain standard and then not expect others to necessarily do so. It's quite another to specifically NOT fulfill a standard and then request that the other side do so.
ReplyDeleteIf the JW decides that Shafran is right, and they are meaning to be completely inclusive and should have a Charedi voice, that's fine. For Shafran to charge that they *should* do so while saying that the Charedi papers don't have to, however, is IMHO ridiculous.
For Shafran to charge that they *should* do so while saying that the Charedi papers don't have to, however, is IMHO ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteEz, your missing the point.
The only reason he thinks the Jewish Week SHOULD is because he feels that it would be in keeping with what the paper stands for...their chosen "derech".
Now, if he felt the paper was very upfront with the fact that they do NOT represent another point of view I do not for a second think that he would have made such a statement.
just my opinion
G - As I noted in the post, on the face of it it seems to be perfectly reasonable. But when one considers his specific complaints (being viewed as poisoning the wells of tolerance), I think it loses a lot.
ReplyDeleteThe point is to be whatever you say you are.
ReplyDeleteIf you are a one sided mouthpiece, then that is what you are and nobody should expect more.
If you are an even sided paper, then that is what are and nobody should expect any less.
So you don't have a problem per se with the point, you only have issue with some of the reasons behind it?
ReplyDeleteCome on
Okay, backtrack a second, because I'm not sure you're seeing my point.
ReplyDeleteHad Shafran simply asked that the JW, as an all-inclusive paper, have a Charedi voice, I think that would have been a fine request. Essentially, by adding in the specific complaints he costs himself points.
In particular, when complaining about how people view Charedim as intolerant, the best approach would be to change how Charedi papers work by making them more tolerant - not by requesting that a seat be added to the JW editorial board.
(We also keep cross-posting which makes which parts each is responding to confusing.)
ReplyDeleteYou never get anywhere by expecting people to be what they are not and possibly cannot be.
ReplyDeleteBetter to start with getting people to be what they say they are and then working from there.
If you refuse to do anything unless everyone agrees to play nicely together from the start then nothing is ever gonna get done.
Ezzie, you said it yourself: While requesting that a supposed inclusive paper such as the Jewish Week have a charedi member to present that point of view better, he argues that the Charedi papers need to have no such thing as they make no claims of inclusiveness.
ReplyDeleteThat's what G is saying. Charedi papers don't claim to be inclusive. Anyone looking to find non-Charedi opinions are not going to look in a Chareidi paper. But in a paper which claims to present all sides, he is saying the Chareidim should not be excluded from those "all sides."
Bottom Line -
ReplyDeleteBe what you think you should be and don't worry so much about the others
But in a paper which claims to present all sides, he is saying the Chareidim should not be excluded from those "all sides."
ReplyDeleteBlasphemy! Who are they to hold the Jewish Week accountable to that paper's stated ideal when they won't hold to it equally themselves?!
You never get anywhere by expecting people to be what they are not and possibly cannot be.
ReplyDeleteBetter to start with getting people to be what they say they are and then working from there.
If you refuse to do anything unless everyone agrees to play nicely together from the start then nothing is ever gonna get done.
Disagree, and this episode proves the point. If you don't force others to hold themselves to similar standards all that happens is that everything becomes increasingly one-sided. Tolerance on the one side while there is none on the other simply allows for continued issues.
Be what you think you should be and don't worry so much about the others
Goes back to an old debate of ours. While true, it is only true to an extent. You can ignore the others so long as it does not affect you, but beyond that, attention must be paid.
Erachet - I understand what he's saying, it's not the point I'm discussing.
ReplyDeleteYou can ignore the others so long as it does not affect you, but beyond that, attention must be paid.
ReplyDeleteHow does what a Charedi paper put effect in the slightest what a non-Charedi paper decides what should be put out?
Unless that paper's stated ideal is to be exactly the opposite of whatever the Chareidi paper does, in which case nobody should expect any different.
Blasphemy! Who are they to hold the Jewish Week accountable to that paper's stated ideal when they won't hold to it equally themselves?!
ReplyDeleteNot the thrust of the point... grr.
It's not who are they to hold them to it so much as if this is what you want to show, shouldn't you do it yourself first.
Tolerance on the one side while there is none on the other simply allows for continued issues.
ReplyDeleteyou're right nobody should try and do ANYTHING until they have agreements from every possible player that they will all agree to play by one agreed set of standards.
Please!
you're right nobody should try and do ANYTHING until they have agreements from every possible player that they will all agree to play by one agreed set of standards.
ReplyDeleteNo, but you certainly wouldn't cater to the person who won't abide by those standards now, would you?
How does what a Charedi paper put effect in the slightest what a non-Charedi paper decides what should be put out?
Not quite what I was talking about. You don't think a Charedi paper putting out alternate viewpoints would have an impact? Of course it would.
"if this is what you want to show, shouldn't you do it yourself first."
ReplyDeleteNO!
Why do i have to live up to your stated ideals in order to point out that YOU are not living up to them?
(This is beside the point that Rabbi Shafran hardly represents the other side in its truest form.)
Have to? No. Wouldn't it be wiser, though? Don't you lose a heapload of credibility when you ask for someone to do something you won't?!
ReplyDeleteNo more than someone else loses credibility for not willing to live up to what they say are.
ReplyDeleteAnd since when does everyone need to do things the same way?
ReplyDelete...except as noted by you, 'tis unclear whether that's what they say they are, nor whether they need to have a Charedi writer to be "inclusive", etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteLike I said - it's not an unreasonable request on its own: "The JW seems to be catering to everyone, so can they add a Charedi voice to include Charedim." But when focusing on a lack of tolerance, the best approach would seem to be actually showing tolerance yourself rather than noting the lack of it and excusing it before charging the other side to show some.
They don't.
ReplyDeleteSo now we're worried about the wisest course of action?
ReplyDeleteOkay, fair enough. It may not be the wisest way to go about it, i thought we already covered that.
Does that mean that one is absolved from having to take it seriously? That it now has no value?
I feel like a voyeur on your Gchat conversation
ReplyDeleteI feel like a voyeur on your Gchat conversation
ReplyDelete---------
That's basically what this is a re-hash of...we've been over this before.
time to punch out
SaraK - LOL, this is the risk of "checking the box". At least it all comes in one line...
ReplyDeleteG - Dammit! That's all it was the whole time! :P See the post: Wouldn't the best solution to this be to not demand a seat at the Jewish Week, but to show tolerance and understanding?
Anyway, I still think it's a decent and fair suggestion, and did when I started reading the post. I just didn't see the need for the rest of it and thought he very much took away from his own argument by adding it in.
There are also a few other things he says in there that were troubling, particularly in how he presents things. That the Charedi way is the "more traditional Jewish path" is given as fact was a little rankling, particularly in light of the issues he brought up.
That the Charedi way is the "more traditional Jewish path" is given as fact was a little rankling,
ReplyDeleteExactly what I said before.
Ezzie,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you that it is important to hold yourself to the same standards that you expect of others, I dont think its really applicable to this situation. The JW makes a point of claiming to represent all faces of Judaism without being discriminatory. The yated/hamodia etc... make no such claim. Certainly, if their respective editors were contacted they would make a point of claiming political correctness and equality, but the fact is that no one buys it, themselves included, because it is just not true.
The thrust is that when an opinion is presented in the ultra-ortho press, it is representative of, and ONLY of, the ultra-ortho community. They would not claim that they represent anyone else because they dont care to. That is not their goal. When a more liberal publication (such as the JW) presents an opinion they present it as the opinion of Jews in general, and more specifically of the Jewish cultural entity as a whole. For this reason Shafran calls for a chareidi voice. The JW IS claiming to represent the chareidi community. The chareidi press makes no such reverse claim.
If you're the spokesperson for the Agudah, you have to be very, very careful. You can't tick off the Agudists because...well, you're their spokesman. You can't just tick off the MO whenever you want to because then you make a chillul Hashem.. So R' Shafran posts a post showing how the secular values of journalism should support the Agudah being given a voice.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it: if Reform was discriminated against, R' Shafran would not care, not express his opinion, or think it's a good thing.
What has to be remembered is that R' Shafran has a job to keep: he is the spokesman for the Agudah. That's where his values truly come from. And any appeal to secular values is simply a(n extremely wise) way to shield himself and his organization from critique.