What a hatchet job in the Yated. I think I have to write about it (probably after Shabbos).—
Machshavos (@machshavos) April 19, 2013

It’s not so easy to come up with time to write, but when you tell the tworld you’re going to write, you’ve got to write.

The Yated this week (Friday April 19, 2013 edition) dealt with the Broyde-Goldwasser controversy in two pieces. The first was an article by Avrohom Birnbaum. He tried taking Rabbis Gil Student and Harry Maryles (primarily them; he jabbed the hatchet at at least one other, I believe) to task for…I guess for not decrying R. Broyde’s actions vociferously enough. In the opinion piece Birnbaum managed to err in his description of the award Jimmy Carter recently received at Cardozo; describe R. Student’s blog in a brief and wildly inaccurate way; implicitly blame blog owners for their commenters; blatantly mis-state the nature of a brief summary R. Student had written on a critique of R. Broyde; refer to R. Broyde’s apology as “half-hearted”; and issue what seems – to my mind – the harshest criticism of a non-celebrity I have ever seen in a modern newspaper in his description of R. Maryles.

One of the worst parts of Birnbaum’s article is the fact that he may have a point. Do people judge scandalous activity from people they like more charitably? I don’t know. Some certainly do. Some likely don’t. It’s very hard to remove all biases from the equation when issuing judgment. But by turning a reasonable question into something entirely different – something stunningly accusatory and incredibly offensive – Birnbaum prevented his question from being addressed. (I also think it fair to ask Birnbaum: Does he interpret dan lekaf zechus in the same manner when judging a bearded, kapote-wearing man and a clean-shaven fellow in jeans?)

*     *     *

Birnbaum used the word schadenfreude to describe the joy that Hirhurim commenters feel when discussing chareidi improprieties, but I think the word would be used at least as aptly in describing the feelings of those who wrote the Yated’s scathing indictments of Rabbis Broyde, Student and Maryles.

Nobody (that I’ve seen) is talking about it, but I found the aggregated article on R. Broyde to be appalling. I honestly don’t remember it all and I’m not going back to read it now, but the jabs they took at a man who is down were in extremely poor taste. The article quoted liberally from Steven I. Weiss’ original investigation, something you can be certain it would not have done if a chareidi rabbi committed some wrong.

Like I said, I don’t remember it all and I’m not going back to read it now. But if Birnbaum wants to find a media double standard, I think he should look in his own paper.

In Praise of the Coverage

Ami Magazine has received some criticism for its coverage of the Weberman trial. As I disclaimed, I have only seen a portion of their coverage, yet I feel that any criticism of Ami for its pro-Weberman slant (which, as I said, I have not confirmed to be true) should be somewhat restrained.

Advocates for victims of sexual abuse hope for awareness. Ami may be incredibly unhelpful to the case against Nechemya Weberman. But by devoting pages to the subject of child sexual abuse – unlike other Charedi media outlets like the Yated and Matzav.com – they are at least bringing the issue of abuse to the parents and educators of young children.

The phrase “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public,” is attributed to Scott Adams. It might similarly be a challenge to underestimate the ignorance of much of the populace, particularly the Orthodox Jewish populace, when it comes to sexual crimes.

I’m not saying Ami’s coverage was good, but I think devoting pages to the Weberman trial is better than the alternative.

Critiquing the Coverage

With the same caveat I offered earlier, I’d like to critique a few more-or-less random points from the Ami article.

• According to Farkas, “the jury was missing all the key information” because the judge held back certain evidence. While I have no doubt that the judge prevented certain evidence from being presented, I’m inclined to think that he had reasons for doing so.
• Farkas claims to be convinced of Weberman’s innocence, pointing out that the entire case depended on the claims of one person. I think it’s also reasonable to remember that A. the entire defense depended on the claims of one person; and B. there is reason to believe that Weberman molested many people, not just the one.
• Farkas stated “I am fully familiar with the case of the four people who were arrested for intimidating and trying to bribe the witness. I am convinced that if it is true, that it was a little punk who set it all up, and the circumstances are completely reprehensible.” I thought this statement indicated a rather strong pro-Satmar bias. Reportedly, the bribe was for half a million dollars and was offered shortly after a communal fundraiser (which, granted, cannot be taken to mean that if fundraiser funds were used for bribery, those who contributed them knew they’d be so used). Is it really so hard to believe the claims that the perpetrators and intimidators were “punks” who did represent the community? Really?

I have finally succumbed to the idea of posting somethingfrom a Jewish Newspaper. To top it off, this is from the Yated of all places.Now, I don’t generally read this “fine” publication for a myriad of reasons(which is not a discussion for this post), but this letter to the editor struckme as interesting and I wish to share it with you as you might find it interesting to say the least. It was either this or some mediocre poem, so be happy I chose the letter .(I have emailed the author at the address stated below about my “syndication”of his content, so if this post mysteriously disappears in the near future you’llknow why.)  

A BOY’S RESPONSE

Dear Editor,

No I am not. I am not him. I am hopefully not the object of your hatred, disdain or derision. I do notrifle through shidduchim like an over-caffeinated auctioneer. I have con­versedwith shadchanim via phone, email and text, but the exchange is generallycongenial and jointly initiated.

They are in my phone book, but they are not on my speeddial. I don’t have a blocked-callers list (in case you were wondering). And no,I don’t relish the process. At times it might be enjoyable, but it is not agame. It is a fateful and significant stage in the process of life, full of consideration,relationship, assessment, planning, joy, humor, stress and sometimes’ pain. Assuch, I try to be considerate and kind, not only because it is advantageous, butalso simply because of my non-cold, non-lifeless heart. And with that heart I donot cry, at least not as much as was described in the letter I authored severalweeks ago. Empathy that leads to tears is certainly commendable, but that isnot an ability I regularly possess, even to list on the common, exaggerated shidduchprofile. The reality of the global shidduch predicament is saddening, but not debilitating.There are many who suffer through the trials of dating only to ignobly accruethe title “older single” with its adverse connotation.

But there are also scores of boys and girls who meet thosechallenges with confidence, courage, and, believe it or not, cheer. Theygallantly utilize wellsprings of natural or practiced optimism, hopefully intandem with trust in G-d, to navigate the emotionally choppy waters endemic toprolonged dating. Though not exclusively, I would like to consider myself aregular member of the latter troupe. There are times when I feel cruel,insensitive and alone, and there are times I feel compassionate, caring andloved. You might disagree, but I consider that normal and healthy.

So why the manic-depressive, maudlin literary out­burst? Whydid I write a provocative, hyperbolic, seemingly demeaning, yet deceitfulletter to the Readers Write column several weeks ago?

I initially considered the answer to be glaringly obviousfrom the piece itself, but considering the negative feedback, I feel beholdento clarify.

The person described in “The Boy’s Perspective”(Yated Ne’eman, April 23, page 8) and criticized in “Look in the Mir­ror”(April 30, page 116) does not exist (at least to the best of my knowledge). Atthe outset, he personifies the extreme version of the narcissistic, spoiled baalgaavah who deserves and savors the hatred he receives. He is pompous,conceited, and iniquitous, least as many other adjectives you might cook upwith Shift-F7 (for the techies out there). There is no eye that tears for hisdrawn-out tenure as a single boy. We cheer when he strikes out.

Conversely, there is his alter ego, the compassionate,vulnerable, somewhat pa­thetic (as in pathos), pitiful yeshiva guy. He experiencesthe same reality as the Mr. Hyde of his bi-polar personality, but he reacts inthe opposite extreme. He cries, he mopes, and he derides himself as a societal menace.He is affectively (note to the editor – not effectively) hypersensitive,throwing his life and heart under the shidduch-reality bus that he does notcontrol. His perception of girls is monolithic and generalized; his conscienceis prodigious and malignant. We cry for him. We daven for him. We sigh when hecomes up to bat.

The intention in the letter was to depict two divergentresponses to the same reality. Some react with haughty, prima donna ar­rogance,while others meekly cower before their tyrannical, towering guilt. And, admit­tedly,there is he who manages to balance it, sporting a sensible stock of sensitivityas well as self esteem. But we will never know him. We are not in his car afterhe drops her off, in his room at night, or in his mind as he lies down to restand contends with the rest of life. We see the external stimulus but not theemotional effect. We are blind to his struggle. We are practically unequippedto judge him and, as such, it behooves us to desist from doing so. “Withrighteousness thou shall judge thy friend.” That is the point I wanted toconvey.

Hopefully, this adequately clarifies the – letter’s intendedmessage. For inquiries from those who don’t want to be published in the ReadersWrite column, my email ad­dress is mkings84@gmail.com.

Responsively,

M. King