Phil Jacobs, editor in chief of the Baltimore Jewish Times, blogs:
There are no “henchmen” out there getting in my way to investigate individuals or institutions.
I am not under anybody’s “thumb” to prevent the writing of stories on certain rabbis in town who are under suspicion of past sexual molestation.
So for those bloggers who feel that the have “inside” information as to the progress of any one investigation in progress. You don’t. All you are doing is creating hysteria and panic.
I ask you to let the truth set us free on these issues. It will be the truth that brings any further information to the forefront.
Rest assured, I am working on collecting the truth. But it is of no help to me if you take license with what I am doing and spread it as if it were gospel.
Bloggers, if you want to know what is going on with a particular investigation, simply pick up the phone and call me. I will be happy to share with you what I may.
I’m not being secretive, nor am I taking my time out of any kind of fear.
I repeatedly tried to talk to Phil Jacobs in 2004 and 2005. He always blew me off.
Jacobs reminds me of his mentor Gary Rosenblatt.
Gary Rosenblatt writes in The Jewish Week:
Though I am getting used to it, I still find it disconcerting to read about myself –– and my journalistic motivations — on Internet blogs, especially because more often than not the information isn’t accurate. Various writers, often anonymous, claim to know what investigative stories I am working on, or not working on, and why, or why not, though none of them have ever asked me.
I was started to feel bad for Gary until I remembered my experience with him. My time interviewing Gary might as well have been spent talking to a wood block. What’s the point of accountability if you refuse to answer any question that causes you discomfort?
I gave Gary every opportunity to answer various damaging reports about him. Gary wouldn’t. He wouldn’t answer any tough questions. He begged off of every single one.
So excuse me if I shed no tears over his hurt feelings. Excuse me if I afford no respect to his latest cries. Excuse me if my most vivid experience with Gary is him constantly saying, I’d rather not answer that.
When push came to shove, Gary was not accountable. Read my profile of him and make up your own mind.
In case Gary forgets, here are some questions he refused to answer:
* Why did he muzzle his best investigative reporter (Larry Cohler) and refuse to publish for 18-months Larry’ss revelations about Malcolm Hoenlein’s slush fund?
* Why does he refuse to publish Yossi Abramowitz?
* Why has Gary never apologized for the way he had Yossi treated when he came in with his JNF scoop?
Gary’s lead paragraph is a lie. I am a blogger and I asked Gary numerous questions, including questions about stories he was working on. JWB has also corresponded with Gary on these matters.
Gary’s primary question about blogs (and JWB in particular) is: Are they good journalism? This is a stupid question. It’s like asking if a telephone is good journalism. Blogs and phones are simply ways people communicate. The most important question to ask about blogs and writing is: Is it good? Does it have merit?
Journalism is a procedure. Merit is a destination. In this case, the destination is more important than the journey.
Inspired by Gary’s column, I called him at 2:45pm EST to ask him such basic questions as the ones I raise in this essay. He was out to lunch. So I left my questions on his voicemail.
Gary writes: "Over the years in this profession I’ve gotten thicker skin, but there are people whose lives are more private than mine whose reputations and character are maligned in these reports. They have no one to turn to in order to set the record straight, and that’s just not right."
Gary provides no evidence to back up his assertions. I guess Gary is so mighty, he doesn’t need to bother with such details as evidence.
Gary writes: "What bothers me, though, is that in this still emerging field, there is no accountability and there are no professional standards to be met. In the rush to get a story out first, the emphasis is on timeliness rather than accuracy, with seemingly little regard –– or responsibility –– for printing rumors or theories that are untrue. So people who are mentioned and maligned by an anonymous blogger have no recourse."
Again, Gary provides no evidence and no examples to substantiate his charges. I guess this is the type of lazy writing you can get away with when you edit and publish a lazy newspaper filled with mediocre writing. The whole thing is so blah, who’s going to notice that the editor and publisher is making a lot of charges without substantiating them.
To rework a Gary Rosenblatt sentence in his latest blog, I mean column: "There is something very appealing about having one’s own newspaper. It’s easy to do, in this particular column it costs you no work in having to interview people with whom you might disagree, and before you know it, you can be sitting at the office and pontificating on any and all topics for all the world to read, even if you’ve made no exertion to substantiate your points." Sweet.
Gary writes: "I wouldn’t seek legal or medical advice from an amateur attorney or physician who insisted on remaining nameless, yet there are countless people reading blogs on the Web by would-be journalists whose reports go unsubstantiated and unedited, and the results are often hurtful, damaging people’s characters and reputations."
Gary sounds like another tired old clapped-out journalist — David Shaw.
Gary writes: "More upsetting are the bloggers who criticize individuals by name, make accusations against rabbis and communal leaders, but don’t have the guts to identify themselves, or bother to interview the people they write about."
Gee, that sounds just like Gary Rosenblatt. He wrote a column about Jewish Whistleblower and company, but didn’t bother to interview the people he wrote about.
Gary writes: "To demand full disclosure of others without identifying one’s self seems the height of chutzpah and hypocrisy to me."
Yeah, it is just like asking a baseball writer to hit a 100mph fastball before he’s allowed to write about baseball. Gary uses anonymous sourcing when it suits him. He gives voice to the agendas of people he allows to remain anonymous.
Gary writes: "Call me old-fashioned, but I still think you do your best work if your reputation is on the line every time you write."
Gary’s been phoning it in for years. His reputation in journalism rests almost entirely on work he did years ago, rather than the stuff he’s done in the past few years. He has a cushy job where he’s subsidized by the Jewish Federation buying most of his newspapers. He can keep his cushy job as long as he keeps playing ball with the machers. Gary is a far better player of Jewish politics than he is an editor.
Given the comparative magnitude of Gary’s resources, the big story about him is that he, week in and week out, publishes a dull paper. And when you put your name on mediocrity, it doesn’t make it anything more than mediocre. It’s nothing more than Yesterday’s News Tomorrow, which, more often than not, is precisely what The Jewish Week reads like if you keep up with the top five Jewish blogs (JWB, Miriam and Paul Shaviv, Chakira, Scott Rosenberg, Steven I. Weiss).
If Jewish Whistle Blower (JWB) develops an impressive track record of accurate reporting, then his work is still sterling even if JWB doesn’t put his real name on it.
It is more important in these types of discussion that we concentrate on what is good rather than on what is "good journalism." It is less important that JWB might not live up to the protocols of journalism than to evaluate his work as a whole for its merit. Most Jewish weeklies are journalistically sound but dull timid affairs. JWB might not be journalistically sound (I’m not arguing one way or another on this), but his work is often timely and ground-breaking.
Inspired by Gary’s column, I decided to ask the subject of this essay a question. I emailed Gary:
If interviewing the people you write about is so important, how come you made no attempt to interview Jewish Whistleblower? Your article indicates no attempt to interview any leading Jewish blogger and include their views. I guess they are not worthy. (Yeah, I saw DNC’s article on bloggers nine months ago, it broke no new ground).
I guess Gary’s rules of good journalism don’t apply to Gary.
I guess he’s not as open to being questioned by bloggers as he pretended. Gary did not return my email or my phone call. I guess Gary’s plaintive complaint about bloggers, "none of them have ever asked me," was just a pose.
Has Gary ever given a good interview? I can’t find one.
I think Gary is out to lunch on this one. JWB is entitled to his anonymity and to his style. The fact of the matter is that it is not JWB’s job to be responsible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his posts are productive or dangerous, or cogent, or even defensible.
Gary’s objections are the sort of criticisms one might make of, say, a journalist, someone whose job description includes being responsible about what he says in public. JWB, however, is not a journalist?he is an entertainer. Or maybe it’s better to say that he, like all bloggers, is part of a peculiar, modern, and very popular type of news industry, one that manages to enjoy the influence of journalism without the stodgy constraints of fairness, objectivity, and responsibility that make trying to tell the truth such a drag for everyone involved.
Shimon Rosenthal writes:
Mr. Rosenblatt claims that bloggers are unfair and dishonest because they do not print their names. He implies that he and the rest of his print journalist colleagues are honest and fair because they posts their names on their articles. The argument is so flawed and filled with contradiction that it is difficult to know where to begin.
A journalist is fair and honest because they sign their names to their stories. But what about the stories they do not print? A print journalist can hold a story for his own interest. That is corrupt and unethical, no matter how many other stories he assigns his name to. Sins of omission are no lesser crimes or abuses of the journalistic ethic than sins of commission.
Mr. Rosenblatt for example will never write negatively about anything to do with the Federation system. Why? Because UJA NY sends free copies of the Jewish Week to all its members, thereby increasing Mr. Rosenblatt’s circulation and his ad revenue far beyond anything he could dream of otherwise. So, when Mr. Rosenblatt, the dean of Jewish journalism, fails to write a story about the Federation system, but signs his name to another story, is he behaving ethically? Mr. Rosenblatt would not know of this, because he is an honorable man.
Indeed, Mr. Rosenblatt covered up a story about a tremendous government fine levied against him and the Jewish Week. Had Mr. Rosenblatt believed in reporting the news or his obligation to the community, if he were truly fair and honest, he would have printed a story to show the community what happens to those people who abuse financial systems. The New York Times put the Jason Blair fiasco front and center. Mr. Rosenblatt hid his scandal while claming to uncover others. But surely, Mr. Rosenblatt is an honorable man.
Mr. Rosenblatt’s diatribe against bloggers is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by a third class journalist to pick a fight with a developing new medium.
An educated person would tell Mr. Rosenblatt that anonymously written leaflets were a tremendous part of the early newspaper business. In fact, anonymously written papers were the norm and a critical component of early political life in this country. Surely, Mr. Rosenblatt knows this, for he is an educated and honorable man. Mr. Rosenblatt is more educated and honorable than Dr. Benjamin Franklin, because Dr. Franklin took to writing anonymously. Mr. Rosenblatt is a greater thinker than Thomas Jefferson, because the third president and drafter of the Declaration of Independence, wrote anonymously.
Mr. Rosenblatt is more honest than Mr. Madison who, as it happens wrote anonymously. I am sure no one will argue that Mr. Rosenblatt would have made a far superior president than Abraham Lincoln who wrote anonymously. I have no doubt that the Federalist Papers were written by men of low moral character because they too were written anonymously. I am sure no one will argue that Mr. Rosenblatt would have made a far superior president than Abraham Lincoln who wrote anonymously. I have no doubt that the Federalist Papers were written by men of low moral character because they too were written anonymously. But don’t worry, Mr. Rosenblatt is an honorable man.
Mr. Rosenblatt also makes the false assertion that a person signing their name to something cannot be unethical, or careless with the facts. You need only read his paper to know that that is certainly nor the case. Mr. Rosenblatt cannot point to a single issue of the Jewish Week that contained no bias, agenda or false assertion.
Mr. Rosenblatt also fails to note the contradiction inherent when one puts his argument against his practice. If someone who does not sign their names to something is more apt to be careless with facts and details, then why does the Jewish Week publish stories with anonymous quotes? But don’t blame him, Mr. Rosenblatt is an honorable man.
Mr. Rosenblatt suffers from an ailment common to many self righteous people of his generation. He believes that the world began the day he was born and that all was invented under his watch. He believes he can do no wrong and that it is his job to point to the failings of those who do not follow his way, professionally, religiously, philosophically or any other ly you would like. His is a special breed of arrogance and stupidity that is reserved for those who believe they are big fish because they live in an incredibly small fishbowl.
Blogging is an evolving medium, just like newspapers were once. Ethics and standards will emerge. But to dismiss someone, their facts or their opinions for omitting their names while other people do not is wrong. But then again, Mr. Rosenblatt would not know what it is like to be wrong.
The Jewish Week paid a fine of less than a million dollars for abuse of mailing privileges. The details about the fine are public record and should be found at the New York Attorney General’s office.
Frankly, I don’t care if people criticize me. I could delete every such post on my blog, yet I do not.
Some quick notes:
1) Rosenblatt never contacted me by e-mail or clarified any of his claims about me or my blog or asked me any questions. He made very clear he was referring to my blog but did not name it.2) Rosenblattt is more than welcome to comment on my blog. If he emails me a response, I would be prepared to post it uncensored. He can even choose the title. I have been given no such courtesy.
3) I have never claimed to be "a Jewish reporting blog". I make no claim to be a journalist. Perhaps if certain court decisions find blogging to be journalism then I might.
4)>I still find it disconcerting to >read about myself –– and my >journalistic motivations
I never claimed to know Rosenblatt’s motivations other than to improve the community and report factual stories. My criticism was in regard to a number of stories he either killed, chose not to pursue, kept quiet at the request of senior RCA offcials and one story where I felt he "soft-balled" the story.
I have consistently defended Rosenblatt in many posts concerning people who attacked his motivations and in particular his Lanner story, which I believe was some of the finest journalism..
5)
>Various writers, often anonymous, >claim to know what investigative >stories I am working on, or not >working on, and why, or why not, >though none of them have ever asked >me.I have actually been in contact with Rosenblatt and people around him. In a series of emails, Rosenblatt actually did indicate to me why he would not pursue a story. I would further note that the stories I have criticized him for not pursuing (rabbi who wrote racist articles in a white supremist journal, principal with long history of child molestation etc.), I have quoted from articles and editorials written by Rosenblatt that state/allude to exactly what I claim.
6) The unfortunate situation is that when Jewish victims/survivors are looking for help in the media they are almost always directed to Rosenblatt. Although he was very kind and professional with victims of Rabbis Lanner and Weinberg, there is a lack of attention or courtesy that he has displayed in other situations where there were desperate vulnerable people who thought he would help. My concern is that if he has journalistic standards in this area of reporting that differ from the mainstream media be upfront. I have noted in the past that the standards he applies to abuse stories were applied in the general media, there would be no catholic church abuse scandal.
7) This is part of my ongoing criticism of the Jewish community institutions that still provide nowhere for victims or sexual abuse/exploitation to go and no resources.
I did privately criticize Rosenblatt in a private email (which was a response to an unsolicited email from him, which involved an email I had sent to his mentor which was of course forwarded without my consent to Rosenblatt, everyone ultimatley gets forwarded to Rosenblatt as so many reporters don’t want to touch these sort of stories) several years ago on this exact matter. I had been in contact with Rosenblatt on a similar subject months earlier and realized he had no interest pursuing the story as he has his unique standards for such stories which as I told him at the time served no purpose other than to protect people with documented histories of sexually abusing particularly young children.
Jewish law does not permit me to put my life and my family’s lives in danger when it is unnecessary. In this situation, I believe I can do a lot more good behind the scenes through my blog.
Miriam [Shaviv], when you choose to do hard hitting stories about corruption from the community you came from, I will take your evaluation more seriously (ie: the defunct Toronto Jewish Boys’ choir, look into it).
I don’t claim to be a journalist. Rosenblatt does. If he has criticism of me, why didn’t he try to contact me? He looked at my profile, where an email address is featured. And yet he accuses me of not "…bother[ing] to interview the people they write about".
I most certaily did address my criticism of his journalistic standards (in relation to sexual abuse stories) to him directly. He on the other hand has not done what he preaches.
I confirm he sent me no email in relation to my blog.
Paul [Shaviv], when you start addressing people in your own community and profession that have histories in this area, I will no longer be necessary. I don’t see you posting about the defunct Toronto Jewish Boys’ choir or naming names.
Of course if you do so, you will be hauled to beis dins, have your name plastered in flyers, your parnasah destroyed, you will be put in cherem and your grandchildren’s shiduch opportunities impacted.
Paul, Miriam, put your own house in order. You want a real news story? Track down what happened with this choir. Put together how many of your great community leaders keep this shameful episode secret and protected the predator involved at the expense of victims and how many young men associated with Pirchei are no longer alive (suicides, drug related deaths, etc.) paying the price for your community’s secret shame and silence.
Paul Shaviv responds to JWB:
1. JWB: Acountability and transparency are 2-way streets, and they apply to you as much as anyone else. I would, again, feel reassured if you at least acknowledged that in the London case, a number of your facts were WRONG.
2. You are questioning my own actions and responsibilities. As I wrote at an early stage, I have dealt with a number of cases of professional misconduct over the years. I just don’t publish the details.
3. I have no knowledge whatever of the Toronto case youa re talking about.
4. Your last (6:26) posting talks about the effect / reaction on people who publish names etc, and the awful consequences that they risk. But isn’t that exactly what you have done to the teacher in London?
JWB responds:
You probably don’t know of other situations in Toronto: 1. A gang rape at a local Yeshiva not reported by the headmaster to the authorities. 2. A Yeshiva where several teachers were quietly told to leave town rather than reporting them to the police. 3. A married board member of a Jewish student organization that has a known history of making unwanted passes at young men.
…Rosenblatt is the last to talk about accountability while working for a newspaper that serves as the organ of the corrupt UJA or whatever alphabet soup the federations go by these days. The Jewish Week only does investigations when it comes to smearing orthodox jews not when it comes to accountability at home. If a UJA official began abusing half the population of Cleverland it would never be seen in The Jewish Week.
Secondly there’s a tradition of reporters working anonymously and undercover. Many of the news stories you see in your newspaper go unsigned as well. Unlike Roseblatt, JW isn’t funded by money intended to go to charity and you don’t have to read him or agree with him. He’s one voice. He does not claim to represent anyone but himself. And a lot of the ‘accusations’ he’s accused of wildly making are in fact news stories from mainstream media outlets produced by reporters with names attached to them.
Plenty of compulsive liars, for example Bill and Hillary Clinton, go by their own names. It does not interfere in any way with their chosen career of compulsive lying. People are judged by their track records and that indeed is the only way anyone can be judged, whether they give their name or not.
That my grocer has a name does not matter to me nearly so much as that I know from past experience the quality of his wares. With journalists too, it does not matter what they call themselves so long as there is a consistent name and identity along with a track record.
His critics cite accountability but what does accountability for a freelance blogger who is not doing this for commercial reasons? He has a consistent identity and that identity and his reputation is accountable. No further professional accountability is possible since his reputation is his profession. Personal accountability however is but that is not a credible argument that someone is not a legitimate reporter unless they expose themselves to personal harrassment.
Journalists who operate in the Orthodox community and live within it, particularly excluding the Modern Orthodox Community, face an environment where investigative journalism is tarred as mosering or lashon hara and where social reputation for a family is everything and where everyone knows instances of corruption but no one speaks out because leaders and Rabbanim may not be questioned.
The blog is the future of Orthodox Jewish journalism. It is anonymous and it synthesizes sources and information and throws in gossip and rumor into the mix too. It opens up sources of information that were closed because no one has a face.
Sultan_Knish writes: "But what is the difference between a professional journalist and an amateur blogger? Yes there’s the office and the fat UJA funds derived salary and getting invited to dinners in your own honor."
5/13/05
I email Phil Jacobs, Editor of the Baltimore Jewish Times:
Early this year, you saw the tape of Vicki Polin’s controversial May 1, 1989 appearance on the Oprah Show as "Rachel." Why did you not write about that? What was not newsworthy about that?
According to a source who’s spoken to Phil Jacobs about this, Phil says he has been inundated with stories and the other responsiblitiesof being the editor of a paper. He just hasn’t had time to do the research involved in doing this story. He knows that Vicki wouldn’t talk to another reporter at his paper. He put Vicki on his list of articles to write, and hasn’t gotten to it yet.
Maybe Phil should pay me to do the research and write this story for his august publication?
I email Gary Rosenblatt at The Jewish Week:
How long have you known that Vicki Polin was the "Rachel" in the infamous May 1, 1989 Oprah show? Why haven’t you written about it?
Gary has known that Vicki was the infamous "Rachel" for at least five months, and possibly for years. There was no mention of this in his paper’s 3/26/04 profile of Vicki.
