On Thursday nights, I quickly glance through the Australian Jewish News (AJN) while I eat my dinner. There is the usual stuff which is so boring: Henry Herzog’s letters about section 18C and his obvious anti-Right stance at all costs (love your work Henry), Michael Burd and others in opposition and so on. These are ubiquitous and I’d suggest the AJN probably doesn’t have enough letter writers which is why the letters section seems like the same section one read two weeks prior.
Moving along, and the headline this week screams that Manny Waks was FORCED to apologise to Rabbi Glick after the former was dealing with defamation proceedings. When I read this, I asked myself whether the AJN knew that Manny was ‘forced’ or whether they were exercising Journalistic hyperbole in the (mistaken) belief that they would sell more papers.
Isn’t is possible that when Manny was made aware that he was likely to have crossed a line and that he AGREED to apologise?
Or was it a case where his Board of Tzedek “forced” him to apologise. He wasn’t forced, he could have resigned and held his ground if he felt that what he did was the correct thing to do. This makes such apologies rather vacuous potentially.
Someone who thinks they are right, or at least 100% right is never forced to do anything. They can face the music, and win or lose. If they are convinced they will win the case, they won’t settle. I am sure Manny’s organisation (actually I know that his organisation) has lawyers who will work pro bono. Maybe they advised him to apologise. Is that “forced”?
So where did the AJN get this factoid from? Isn’t it just possible that Rabbi Glick was a Mentch and didn’t want to subject Manny to a trial and was satisfied with a simple apology? Okay, since certain folk decided to name Rabbi Glick to the press originally, that apology had to be public in the sense that it was posted on Facebook?
I would hope that an Australian JEWISH News would adopt standards that are higher than the gutter press. Then again, I don’t know what their standards or definitions are. We read about people, including some politicians being “Jewish” in the AJN. Perhaps they could tell us which definition they subscribe to in an editorial? Do they use Hitler’s (may his name be erased) definition or the Jewish definition? I don’t mean progressive, or even Bialik’s Stowe-Linder that would seemingly accept anything as long as you carry a badge on your lapel which says “Jewish”. It’s what I call extreme pluralism which dilutes everything to the lowest common denominator.
Finally, the thing that really gets up my goat is when I read “news stories” that are so stale as they have appeared online at least 4 days prior. Get your act together AJN. There is more than one way to sell papers.
Disclaimer: I have performed at Menachem Waks’ wedding (and it was a lovely wedding, which I remember clearly) as well as some of Rabbi Glick’s daughters. I have no axe to bring with either of them. It’s about the AJN./