Your Email:

Friend's Email:

Note: (optional)

Subject:

Message: <br /><br /> If you are having trouble reading this email, you may view this article online at: http://www.jweekly.com/17794/full/17794/should-jews-back-boycotts-or-not-unhappy-with-the-media-speak-up-don-t-walk/ <br /><br /> <b>Should Jews back boycotts, or not? Unhappy with the media? Speak up, don’t walk away</b> <br /> Friday, May 17, 2002 | by <p>Gary Rosenblatt </p> <br /><br /><p>Exhibit A: the color photograph, front and center at the top of Page 1 of The New York Times May 13, was of the Salute to Israel Parade. In the background, marchers were coming up Fifth Avenue waving American and Israeli flags; more prominent in the foreground was a group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, featuring a sign that read "End Israeli Occupation of Palestine."<br /><br /> Was this a sign of the Times' pro-Israel sentiments, giving the parade such prominent, front-page attention? Or was it an indication of the newspaper's anti-Israel sentiments, giving equal weight to 100,000 marchers for Israel and 600 protesters? Or, was it a sign of the paper's down-the-middle impartiality, showing both sides of the dispute in one dramatic photo?<br /><br /> A number of Jewish New Yorkers no doubt would say it is an indication of The Times' anti-Israel sentiments. They're incensed that the annual parade, which by all accounts attracted huge numbers of marchers and spectators in a peaceful but powerful statement of support for Israel, was less the focus of the photo than the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.<br /><br /> (It seems The Times, in retrospect, agreed. An Editor's Note the next day on Page 2 acknowledged "the effect was disproportionate. In fairness, the total picture presentation should have better reflected The Times' reporting on the scope of the event, including the disparity in the turnouts.")<br /><br /> As it turns out, the photo appeared on the eve of a planned 30-day boycott of The Times, spearheaded by local leaders Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun and Fred Ehrman, a businessman active in the modern Orthodox community, who said the Page 1 photo pleased him because it underscored his beef with The Times' coverage.<br /><br /> "I'm not a sha-sha [Yiddish for 'be quiet'] Jew," Ehrman told me. "We should have learned that lesson from World War II. Protests are part of a democracy and we feel a need to act."<br /><br /> According to Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications at The Times, the paper has seen "a small increase in cancellations due to editorial coverage." She added that The Times strives for "scrupulous impartiality" and "if occasionally the facts of a particular news situation seem likely to provide more satisfaction to one side than to others, our policy is to restore the balance promptly in our overall coverage."<br /><br /> I know and admire both Ehrman and Lookstein and understand the sense of anger and frustration that has led them to initiate this protest against The Times. I feel it too, at times. But I think their boycott, however temporary, is a mistake—in practice and in principle.<br /><br /> It's one thing to point out examples of incomplete, insensitive, misleading or untrue reporting to the editors of one of the world's great newspapers. Indeed, it is an obligation. In addition, raising funds for ads in The Times and other publications to highlight such inaccuracies might be educational.<br /><br /> And I have long believed it is more fitting for Jewish organizations to place paid obituary and communal announcements in The Jewish Week, as Ehrman and Lookstein suggest, rather than in The Times, not only because it benefits this paper financially but because we are the paper of record for the New York Jewish community.<br /><br /> But to advocate an economic boycott, even for a limited time, strikes me as the wrong message and a disturbing approach.<br /><br /> Even the leaders of this effort appear uncomfortable with the word "boycott," preferring to characterize their action as a "protest." But urging people to cancel subscriptions is a boycott, and it's a dirty word to Jews for good reason. We have suffered as a result of them. And if we Jews are prepared to initiate them now, we can't attack them as immoral when they are used against us, or Israel, as they have been in the past.<br /><br /> What's more, we who believe in and advocate for freedom of expression negate that value when we try to use economic power to squelch a point of view we may disagree with. We should advocate fairness and truth, not the muzzling of a free press.<br /><br /> In practical terms, the proposed boycott can have a backlash effect, having less impact on The Times' profits than on their attitude toward the Jewish community, convincing editors and executives we are unreasonable and irrational. They may conclude, in their own frustration, that nothing they do in their newspaper can pacify us. We will be dismissed as less than serious, and the result could be less motivation to provide balanced coverage. In effect, end of discussion.<br /><br /> But unless we conclude The New York Times as an institution has no interest in providing balanced coverage (and I'm not there yet), it's to our advantage to keep the dialogue going because the facts are on our side. We need more constructive criticism, more marshalling of information, more voices speaking out for fair reporting—not a call to shut ourselves off from reporting and opinions we don't want to deal with.<br /><br /> "Nothing will bounce off the ear of a reporter like the charge of total bias," notes Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University. "It's a loser's word."<br /><br /> I also worry about the tendency in our community, born of annoyance and anger, to dismiss the media as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Those are loaded phrases and we should use them with extreme caution. Don't apply them to The New York Times, for example, unless you're prepared to make the same charge against Ha'aretz and other liberal publications in Israel.<br /><br /> Here's my dilemma: As a supporter of Israel reading about the Middle East, I feel I know the truth of the situation and become upset when I see media coverage lacking in the moral equivalency I am seeking. As a journalist, though, I appreciate the difficulties of trying to present a balanced picture of a bitter, complex conflict that, to an objective outsider, may have more than one truth.<br /><br /> Whether or not The Times (and the mainstream media in general) have an inherent bias, which I do not believe, there are certain journalistic traits that translate into negative coverage for Israel. For example, they tend to look for conflict, favor the underdog (in this case the Palestinians), present photo images that create empathy for the less-armed side, and, most importantly, obsess on symmetry rather than history or context. So in the name of objective reporting, Israeli retaliations against armed militants are juxtaposed and equated with terrorist attacks on women and children. Or as Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, puts it so well, the press tends to equate the arsonist and the firefighter.<br /><br /> The lack of moral equivalency in the press—"balancing," as The Times does often in its editorials, Sharon's use of military force with Arafat's use of children as homicide bombers—is exasperating. But we need to respond, not turn away. Thoughtful letters of complaint should be written to the editors; phone calls, e-mails and, if possible, meetings with newspaper executives pointing out the immorality of balance serve a purpose, too.<br /><br /> It's difficult to keep perspective, especially when we are upset, but it's important. When I was in Israel last week, I participated in a symposium at Tel Aviv University on "Israel in the Eyes of the Media," and there was little outcry against the American press. And when I met with several top officials in the foreign ministry who monitor the world press, their response to American Jewry's complaints about press coverage was, "let them read just about any newspaper in Europe, any day, and they'll see real bias." By comparison, officials felt the American press is relatively balanced.<br /><br /> That's not to say we should accept coverage we consider to be unfair without speaking out. And if you're fed up with The Times, don't buy it—though you'll be missing important reporting, some excellent columnists and often positive editorials.<br /><br /> But boycotts are a desperate act, a signal that there's nothing more to talk about. I prefer the notion of a free and open press, of responding to inaccuracy with truth, and trusting the public to figure out the difference.</p> <p> </p>

Please enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below: