can someone explain this to me?

[hatam_soferet]

What I don't get, right now, is why we're all being super-sad about the kids who bowed to homophobic bullying and killed themselves, but super-judgemental about the paper who bowed to homophobic bullying and apologised for announcing a gay wedding. I must have seen a dozen posts in the last hour badmouthing that paper.

If they got bullied into doing what they did...why are we blaming them? Aren't they also victims of bullying? Okay, if they actually changed their minds and decided that Teh Gheyz are Ebil, that's one thing. We can be judgemental about that. But why aren't we first asking them just what these mysterious rabbis threatened? Telling them that it doesn't matter what the rabbis said, we'll support them? Pushing to know who these rabbis are?

Why are we blaming the victim?

Can we stop it, please?

Comments

[almadsfeika]

What you said. Tis spot on.

[liv]

I think you're partly right; the paper is in some way the victim of bullying here. However, I expect a professional company to be better able to stand up to bullying than a teenager; it's not a direct analogy. I do think we should be going after the rabbis who put pressure on the paper to do something despicable, those awful people are definitely more to blame. Also from the point of view of the kahal we really don't want religious leaders who go about banning papers from reporting weddings! But the paper still did something despicable, and they're not entirely in a position where they can be excused by saying "but They told me to!"

I was also angry with the paper that apologized for publishing an article about Muslims celebrating Eid without mentioning that some Muslims are scary America-hating evil terrorists. The orgs who put pressure on them to issue that apology are more to blame, but I still think the paper was in the wrong as much as being a victim of "bullying".

[tircha]

A newspaper is not a person, let alone a vulnerable one. Can't get with you on this one.

[pseudomonas]

Yes, I agree. The newspaper is in a position of power and responsibility here. The fact that some of their readers have whined at them isn't an excuse.

[hatam_soferet]

Sounded to me like they'd been strong-armed by the local Orthodoxim... not so sure they have that much power, if the local mafia have economic clout.

It's not okay. They're journalists.

[(Anonymous)]

I see this point. However, as journalist, I can't understand this decision. Journalists do no apologize. It is unethical. We correct factual inaccuracies, always. But we don't apologize for them. What NJ Jewish Standard did is beyond understanding for the rest of us journalists, even us Jewish ones.

See my post at Jewschool for more on this.

Re: It's not okay. They're journalists.

[hatam_soferet]

Oh, rubbish. Being a journalist somehow makes you infallible? Because you earn money being published you never say anything you have to apologise for? I'm not buying that.

[kerrypolka]

Yes, "no apologies, ever" is a fairly bizarre flag to plant. We all screws up sometimes; the important things are to figure out where the screw-up happened and fix it. Sometimes fixing it requires an apology.

- another (paid!) journalist's opinion

Re: It's not okay. They're journalists.

[ajollypyruvate]

"We correct factual inaccuracies, always. But we don't apologize for them."
What? Who told you this? There are hundreds of "CityTimes reported [blargh] on [thisdate]. CityTimes was in error. [blargh] is actually [blech]. CityTimes apologises for the error" out there practically daily and have been for at least 3.5 decades.

Re: It's not okay. They're journalists.

[hatam_soferet]

I think he means more along the lines of "Mr D wrote an editorial last Monday in which he expressed opinions only held by jerks. Mr D would like to apologise for his lack of gentlemanly restraint. Mr D is on vacation."