Back in March, I wrote an article and subsequent blog entry about pro-Israel activist Jim Sinkinson’s fight to stop the Berkeley Daily Planet from printing reader submissions he deemed “vicious and venomous diatribes.”
So why revisit the issue now? In its June 4 edition, the Daily Planet printed a lengthy article with seven sidebars — literally pages and pages — all under the banner “The Campaign Against the Daily Planet.”
To be honest, I don’t have the space or the energy to rehash the entire section.
Basically, the Daily Planet accused “a few East Bay individuals” of threatening to bankrupt the paper “unless it stops publishing criticisms of Israel’s policies and actions — opinions and ideas they brand anti-Semitic.”
You can imagine what those “East Bay individuals” are doing right now.
It should be noted that in her April 8 editorial, “Knowing Who You Are, and Why,” Daily Planet executive editor Becky O’Malley used my blog entry against me.
She claimed I never spoke with anyone at the DP, when I indeed had a conversation with her. Before my deadline.
She finally returned my call, explaining she’d been out of the office on vacation in Santa Cruz.
O’Malley also inserted the word “extremists” in place of the word “they” in a portion of the quoted material. Talk about taking liberties with the First Amendment.
In case you didn’t read my blog online, I’m using the rest of this column to print it. Here it is:
After making the final revision to my article “Anti-Israel letters to Berkeley newspaper draw ire,” I was one mouse-click away from tossing my notes into the virtual wire wastebasket.
But something stopped me.
I started to reread them, internalizing Jim Sinkinson’s argument against the Berkeley Daily Planet’s policy for reader submissions. The DP publishes, or attempts to publish, every signed letter from locals — except ones that are “obscene.”
Sinkinson claims the DP prints letters in its editorial section that “frequently cross the line into anti-Semitism.” He made advertisers aware of his findings in a letter that provided past examples of what he called “hateful material.”
The Daily Planet fired back with an “open letter” of its own, calling Sinkinson’s actions “a campaign of intimidation.”
For the DP, it’s a free speech issue. For Sinkinson, it’s a hate speech issue. So who’s right?
Based on the many comments j. received from online readers, it appears Sinkinson’s argument struck a chord with those wanting to see the DP use discretion with regard to its opinion and commentary pieces, and letters to the editor.
Just the opposite happened in the DP. Its open letter sparked an endless stream of letters to the editor, praising the independent newspaper for taking a stand against Sinkinson.
Personally, I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment. I wouldn’t be able to do my job as a journalist without it. But it is my Jewish identity that takes precedence when analyzing this situation.
My first-ever bout (albeit indirect) with anti-Semitism occurred while covering a pro-Israel counterprotest at a pro-Palestine rally in front of San Francisco’s City Hall.
The signs I read and the chants I heard against Jews more than bordered on anti-Semitism. It stung. While reading some of the examples Sinkinson cited in his letter to Daily Planet advertisers, I experienced the same reaction.
A 2006 commentary submitted to the DP by an Iranian student asked why Jews had “problems with Egyptians, with Jesus, with Europeans, and in modern times with Germans.” His response: “The answer, among other things, is their racist attitude that they are the ‘Chosen People.’ ”
Yes, the piece is three years old. It’s still insulting. It’s still crass. It still hurts when I read it on a paper’s Web site.
Now, I’m not here to take Sinkinson’s side or praise him and his partners. But I definitely understand more where they’re coming from. That, for me, is the first step toward an appreciation for their fight.
Amanda Pazornik can be reached at [email protected].