HOWARD FELDMAN
But I need to be cautious to not shoot the messenger. Hating the stories is not the same as hating the paper. Hating the negative news, and the fact that the paper sometimes forces us to hold a mirror a lot closer than is comfortable, is not a reason to detest the publication.
I received terrible (and brilliant) feedback on my own article about homophobia in the orthodox community. I was told that I was ignorant, and that I was a disgrace. I was told that I was “bating” (sic) people, and that I was taking cheap shots at Judaism.
And then I received a few messages from rabbis saying that my article was important, and that they were continuing to have the conversation I started from the pulpit.
It has long been said that the SA Jewish Report has thousands of editors. As a community, we are outspoken and opinionated. We have strong views as to what should or should not be spoken about. Unfortunately, we are also not always as honest as we should be. What I mean by this statement is the following: whereas we might feel very strongly that the paper should cover a matter this week because we might have been negatively affected by it, or because we don’t know any of the parties involved, we might feel very differently next week because we happen to be family friends of the subject. I do know that the editor and board (where necessary) agonise over these stories, and that sometimes I agree with their decisions, and sometimes I don’t.
As past chairman of the board, I also know that the paper tries to stick to the principle that it reports on what is in the public interest, not only what is interesting to the public, when it comes to sensitive matters. This too, along with most things, is open to discussion, and very often it’s possible to start from the answer we want before honestly debating the merits.
We all have the choice whether or not to read the paper. We have the choice whether to love or hate the content. Where we have less options is the manner in which we respond to what we like or don’t like. We can contact the editor, we can discuss it with friends, and we can send a letter to the paper.
On Sunday night, I received a voice note that seemed to capture a conversation between two people. It was shockingly disparaging of the newspaper, and used my name (inaccurately). Sending a voice note that suggests that the best use for the paper is toilet paper is to negate any valid comment or criticism we might have. Especially as that is the type of message that people tend to share and share again. The irony of the complaint that the paper is too shmootzik (dirty), and contains lashon hara (derogatory speech) while sending a note like that, should not be ignored.
It’s not pleasant to read negative stories, especially when it’s about our own community. Sometimes it’s better that we hold that mirror up close, and take responsibility for who we are, rather than being forced to deal with it when it is reported in other mediums.
Either way, it would do us no harm to take the time to appreciate the fact that we have a robust and independent paper, and be grateful for all it represents.
