For better or worse, I’m as Jewish as any of your GetReligionistas. (In a Jewish sense I fall well short of my predecessor here, Ari L. Goldman; I also fall short as a journalist.) Thus, I’m often the guy who gets called upon when there is a bit of Jew news that needs some scrutiny.
For example, yesterday one of my colleagues sent me a story by Isabel Kershner of The New York Times. It was titled “Some Israelis Question Benefits for Ultra-Religious,” and, in light of past discussions here, the question was one of lingo.
As I also discussed last summer, there has long been a perception in Israel that the Haredim — what those outside the group consider Ultra Orthodox Jews — freeload off the Jewish state, primarily by escaping compulsory national or military service and by studying Talmud instead of earning a living.
But this New York Times piece was not just revisiting trodden ground. (I mean, it was, but the soil was still pretty fresh.) Kershner opened with:
Chaim Amsellem was certainly not the first Parliament member to suggest that most ultra-Orthodox men should work rather than receive welfare subsidies for full-time Torah study. But when he did so last month, the nation took notice: He is a rabbi, ultra-Orthodox himself, whose outspokenness ignited a fresh, and fierce, debate about the rapid growth of the ultra-religious in Israel.
“Torah is the most important thing in the world,” Rabbi Amsellem said in an interview. But now more than 60 percent of ultra-Orthodox men in Israel do not work, compared with 15 percent in the general population, and he argued that full-time, state-financed study should be reserved for great scholars destined to become rabbis or religious judges.
“Those who are not that way inclined,” he said, “should go out and earn a living.”
Kershner is right. It was pretty surprising to hear Amsellem say that. But was it appropriate for Kershner to refer to Amsellem and the men he spoke for and about as ultra-Orthodox?
That depends. See Brad A. Greenberg, Hollywood doesn’t get Jews, GetReligion.org, June 7, 2010; specifically, look at comment four:
I debated whether to use the term “ultra Orthodox” because, as BC noted, it’s not commonly used. However, in this case, I wanted to give a little attention because the NYT used it in an otherwise well-done story last month and one of our readers found the expression a bit odd. While it can have a pejorative connotation, it doesn’t implicitly and it is a descriptor broadly used in the Jewish community.
Far as I can tell, “ultra-Orthodox” is New York Times style. I know my old stomping grounds, The Jewish Journal, uses it as well. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, however, does not.
JTA, which has an audience more highly knowledgeable of the contours of the Jewish community, once preferred “fervently Orthodox,” but has moved away from that moniker. It now uses Haredi Orthodox on first reference. Why does JTA avoid “ultra-Orthodox?” Because members of that community object to the term and using it doesn’t help readers understand the group being identified than the term Haredim, which is what the Haredi call themselves.
For JTA, it’s a matter of respecting the wishes of the Haredi, but I think it’s based on the faulty premise that “ultra” implies extremism.
There is, however, another twist when using ultra-Orthodox: It’s a bit of a linguistic fallacy. Anyone who believes they are orthodox does not accept that someone else is living in a more orthodox manner.
Haredi is not, as Kershner notes, Hebrew for ultra-Orthodox. It means “fearing God” or “in awe of God.” Ultra-Orthodox is merely the term most members of the Jewish community use to distinguish the Haredim from Modern Orthodox Jews without having to use Hebrew.
This, then, seems to be one of those circumstances on the Godbeat where, like with the pastor of a Messianic church who considers himself a rabbi, reporters refer to members of a group as others perceive them, not as they see themselves.
Whether it is appropriate is a separate issue. If “ultra-Orthodox” is being used pejoratively, then it’s not. But in the vast majority of cases, that term is being used with no more or less derisiveness than “Haredim.”
VIDEO: Regardless of identification, Haredim don’t look good in the above clip from “Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?”
 | Posted at 6:10 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (34) |
December 30, 2010, at 7:57 pm
To me it’s a tough problem. I think part of the question is cultural. If Israelis reading an Israeli story know what Haredi means, it’s one thing. But for many, the word “Haredi” has no meaning and would need a paragraph or more of explanation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
December 30, 2010, at 8:39 pm
C. S. Lewis says somewhere something like what a person sees (or hears) depends on where they are standing, and a great deal upon what kind of person they are.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
December 30, 2010, at 11:28 pm
1) C.S. Lewis is right. Who we are is determinative of how we preceive external stimuli. Hence, “Jew news” in the first graph above. It strike me as a bit, shall we say, flippant? But that’s just me.
2)The term of choice, as the portion of the Times story should make clear, is Torah, not Talmud, as used in graph 3. Torah in this context means the totality of traditional Jewish religious law, Bible, custom and assorted commentaries and other writings, including Talmud.
3)One can be ultra-Orthodox but not haredi, which implies adherence to a particular anti-modernity worldview and lifestyle. The terms are not interchangeable, although they are often treated that way. For example, one may be ultra-Orthodox and a Zionist, as are many of the the more strident ideological-driven members of the religious settler movement (think Hebron).
Haredim are almost always anti-Zionist, sometimes militantly so, meaning that they withold religious sanction from the state because it was created without the arrival of the Messiah, who according to Torah will be the one to restore Jewish sovereignty in eretz Yisroel (the Land of Israel). Yet they sit in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) where they pursue narrow community-oriented political goals, such as getting more funds for their constituency.
Israel papers always use the term haredim, including those that publish in English, Russian, and I’ll bet Amharic, too. American Jewish media (JTA notwithstanding) generally use the terms interchangeably, fearing that their readers won’t get the Hebrew.
4) Another journalistic point worthy of mention here is Morgan Spurlock’s clip above. He had to know or should have known - and if he didn’t he’s a very sloppy journalist - that bringing a camera into what appears to me to be Jerusalem’s haredim Mea Sharim neighborhood would provoke just the sort of reaction he was able to capture on film.
Spurlock here plays the role of the insenstive and/or uninformed journalist who enters a sensitive story with a preconceived storyline and an idea of what will make interesting, if predictable, footage to back that preconceived line. Spurlock, who’s McDonald’s film I liked (please re-read the C.S. Lewis insight above), is, here, just a step above Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Bruno” - without the degree of chutzpeh displayed by Cohen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
December 31, 2010, at 12:41 am
Humpty Dumpty is also right: the only requirement to define meaning in Journalistic Wonderland is to make oneself the master of words. Then words can mean anything the New York Times wants them to mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2010, at 1:23 am
Thank you, Ira, for making your points so calmly. I was so aggravated and insulted from the get-go that I’m not so gentle.
Let’s just take apart this lead the way GR takes apart a story to raise concerns and questions.
For better or worse, I’m as Jewish as any of your GetReligionistas. (In a Jewish sense I fall well short of my predecessor here, Ari L. Goldman; I also fall short as a journalist.) Thus, I’m often the guy who gets called upon when there is a bit of Jew news that needs some scrutiny.
For better or worse… How exactly is that a choice? Is there any way it’s better to have no one at GR critiquing from a Jewish viewpoint on Jewish — or Christian — stories? Jewish journalists are expected to be knowledgeable, well-sourced, fair and clear writing about a majority Christian USA. Is the flip side not true?
Fall short as a journalist… Okay, so we are now set up to think he’s the schulb who drew the short straw. Yep, he tells us he’s stuck with the Jewish stories because GR evidently has no one else capable or wiling to handle a bit of Jew news. Jew news?! I was as startled by that as many would be at, say, “Christer news.” Just because someone with a Jewish name uses the term doesn’t make it acceptable.
Worse yet, the whole post is topped and concluded with a moronic You Tube video in which a crew invades a community with a provocative fellow accosting believers on the street and, surprise, gets a laugh when they choose not to join a mock interview. Let me see…. if this video crew invaded the Amish, would you be insulted on behalf of the believers?
And what possible relevance did that video have to a discussion of vocabulary — Haredi vs. Ultra-Orthodox. Do you know whether those were Haredi? Do you know their degree of orthodoxy? Or is this just a “black hat” guess? What we do know is that they were Jewish people minding their own business, set up to look badly.
And we have no idea why Brad picked to this to illustrate a discussion of a serious issue in Israeli life.
Somewhere in the muck there was some sensible discussion of the tension of what to call believers. But it missed a great opportunity to develop it further. Isn’t this a parallel issue to whether you can call someone a “fundamentalist” today? Instead, we got the insulting lead and video. …
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
December 31, 2010, at 1:53 am
Wow, Cathy, I can only imagine how you would respond if I took something you wrote and turned it into an unfounded character attack.
Some of the criticisms of this post are at least fair, but I feel I need to clarify a few things …
You might be surprised, but do a Google search for “ultra-Orthodox Jew” or “Haredi” and substantially none of the photos returned will be flattering. Having seen “Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden,” I at least thought the Spurlock clip was humorous. Though I agree it only gives credence to those who object to “ultra” as a synonym for extremist.
More significantly, I do not feel I drew the short straw. I love writing about Jewish issues. It’s the reason I left daily newspapers for The Jewish Journal, and it’s a niche within which I hope to write several books. The for better or worse was a bit of self-deprecation (yes, all good journalists should be well-versed at that) so that readers would know that I know that I am far from above reproach. Somehow you interpreted that to mean I’m just a journalistic schlub. I might be, but the proof is not in the pudding of this post.
And I might add that very few reporters are Ari Goldman, yourself included.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
5
December 31, 2010, at 2:35 am
Brad, I’ve been correctly accused of reading things too literally, but even I understood you were not being literal in this case
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 31, 2010, at 3:01 am
Not meaning to stir up a hornets nest here, but, Cathy, am I right in understanding that “Jew” is now a bad word?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
December 31, 2010, at 9:19 am
Hi, Mattk
Yes, for a long time now, using the noun “Jew” instead of the adjective “Jewish” had been pejorative. Think about “the Jew doctor” or “the Jew bankers” as examples. Very parallel to those who say “the Democrat Party” rather than “the Democratic party.”
Happy New Year to all!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
December 31, 2010, at 9:46 am
I don’t remember writing “Jew news”; it may have just been a typo of “Jewish,” but I’m willing to defend the use, in this instance, anyway.
I’m certainly not going to argue with Judy’s examples. Those strike me as abjectly anti-Semitic examples. However, whether something is use pejoratively depends on the motivations of the person choosing that word and the context surrounding it. I would hope that my motivations were plainly benign — and not just because I have, as Cathy pointed out, a Jewish name.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
4
December 31, 2010, at 10:53 am
Of course, I make mistakes in tone and you bet that readers — and GR, too — let me know if I stray from the standards I try to meet of respectfully engaging readers.
Several weeks ago, in a story covering the elevation of Archbishop Burke to cardinal, I pointed out that he kicked off the “wafer watch” on John Kerry. That phrase was read by some Catholics as insulting the Eucharist. And the Google defense (“see, folks, everyone uses it, even Catholic publications”)was not an acceptable excuse. I reconsidered my language and changed it. The phrase was not essential to my larger point in the post. It was a needless distraction.
Is your lead on the Haredi post working for you — respectfully engaging readers on a classic GR kind of discussion — or a distraction that serves no purpose? It’s not a character attack on you to point out that saying you cover Jewish stories because GR has no one else equipped to do so. It’s demeaning to your readers.
“Jew news” doesn’t work for you either. It makes GR sound like “Get Christian Religion” with a little ghetto for minority folks. (Terry, It’s all in how the word is used.) Again, it distances you from readers, cuts your credibility, and prevents readers from getting to the real discussion.
And for goodness sake, dump the dumb video. If people choose, for religious reasons, not to participate in modern media, they are by definition never going to look good on ambush videos.
Neither one of us are (is? God, I need a copy editor!) Ari Goldman. Indeed, since there’s only one Ari and he’s no longer with GR, perhaps a rethinking is necessary: Either diversify the staff or diversify the skills of the existing staff.
If/when someone Jewish joins GR, I would expect that person to be able to soundly critique religion media in general, not only stories that directly feature Jewish people or issues of particular interest to Jewish readers. And if (or should I say when?)my work gets called out, well, I’ll take it and learn from it.
Cathy
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
7
December 31, 2010, at 12:07 pm
Brad: Since you’ve used the phrase “Jew news” before in your published work
(cf. — Oct. 23, 2008 God Blog: “In other Hollywood Jew news, Danielle Berrin has a fascinating cover story this week for The Jewish Journal … “)
your disclaimer that “I don’t remember writing “Jew news”; it may have just been a typo of “Jewish” is looking more like a dodge for accountability.
Care to try again?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
December 31, 2010, at 1:16 pm
I didn’t realize this was the Inquisition, but gladly: Hollywood Jew is a proper noun.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
December 31, 2010, at 1:33 pm
“Ultra Orthodox” is a bigoted started by liberal Jewish journalists that expresses their own prejudice. Peace Now is is not “ultra left”, the New Israel Fund, “Ultra Liberal”. There are no Ultra Catholics, Protestants or Muslims. Just “ultra” Jews.
Its strange world when Jews who follow tradition are painted as the extreme, and those who do not moderate etc. Pure and simple this term is bigotry. It reflects the prejudice of reporters and liberal Jews who have a disdain for Jews who are observant.
If we need a term lets call this segment of the population “Traditional Orthdox”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 31, 2010, at 1:40 pm
Cathy:
I doubt that the major Jewish publication in LA hires unqualified journalists. In the future, please strive to show as much professional courtesy to GR that we show to USA Today, even on the rare occasions when we have a need to be critical of you, a pro that we frequently note as a veteran on the beat whose work is essential reading.
PS: Did I miss a reply to the questions that I sent you concerning your excellent question on the military chaplain thread at USA Today?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
December 31, 2010, at 1:42 pm
Brad;
Inquisition; another poor word choice, given who was on the receiving end of that one. Sort of like Bush evoking crusade.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
December 31, 2010, at 1:49 pm
Ira: I actually thought it was appropriate because part of what was being called into question was whether I have suitable creds as a Jew-ish journalist and should be understood to be using “Jew” as a non-derogatory adjective. But any comparison to Bush is enough to make me reconsider the wisdom of such a decision.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
December 31, 2010, at 1:52 pm
Brad: No Inquisition here — just asking you to account for the words you have written. So was your second use of “Jew news” a typo or not?
Terry: Could you point to the content of Cathy Grossman’s comments which prompted your assertion “I doubt that the major Jewish publication in LA hires unqualified journalists.”
You seem to be refuting a prior assertion by Cathy — please clarify what Cathy wrote that you are refuting.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
December 31, 2010, at 2:42 pm
Brad;
Speaking for myself, your creds as a “Jew-ish” journalist are irrelevant to this discussion (for the record, you would have been condemned as a Jew under the broad standard applied by the Nazis, but would not qualify as a Jew under Israel’s law of return due to your father’s free-will, I assume, conversion and your professed faith).
The only relevant question for me is one’s journalistic competence to handle the stories one covers. I know many journalists who know little about their own faith, not to mention the myriad other religions one is likely to encounter in our globalized world - and yet write stories with important religion/faith elements. Examples abound and are a GR mainstay.
My reputation as a religion journalist rises or falls on my ability to write comprehensively and with sensitivity about all manner of beliefs that I do not share. Ditto for you.
Let’s try to keep hurt egos out of this discussion and deal in specifics about the journalistic questions at hand.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
December 31, 2010, at 2:53 pm
Well said, Ira. I would only like to add — not for the sake of ego but for accuracy — that while some members of the LA Jewish community objected to my employment at The Jewish Journal because I was Christian, no one ever complained about my competency in covering Jewish issues. Still, though, I’m no Ari Goldman.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
December 31, 2010, at 3:18 pm
Brad: (yet again)
I’m not about to spend more time on this by going over the Jewish Journal website to hunt for criticisms of your work. But I do know of one complaint that was registered.
It was by me, as I’m sure you will recall. I forget what the issue was, but I think it had to do with what I perceived as inadequate knowledge of Judaism on your part, as opposed to your ability to write about LA popular Jewish culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2010, at 3:30 pm
Instead of scolding Cathy Grossman, I wish TMatt would have engaged her criticisms that GR appears to “assign” the “Jew news” to Brad and that GR’s lack of religious diversity and experience hinders its coverage of some issues, especially religious minorities.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
December 31, 2010, at 4:00 pm
More on the issue of “Ultra”
I think there is in attitude in the Jewish world “anyone more religious than me is extreme, anyone less not Jewish”. Use of the prejudicial term ultra is an expression of this bias.
It is a subconscious way of saying that “these guys are extreme and could be violent like we find in other religions”. It is attempt to instill fear and hostility towards observant Jews.
The time has come for journalists to cease the use of this term. Again the best description may be “Traditional Orthodox”.
On another note, my experience with Brad as writer at the Jewish Journal was that he was always thoughtful and professional, his writing reflected quality reporting.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 31, 2010, at 4:03 pm
Again the best description may be “Traditional Orthodox”.
Unless you believe there is nothing “Traditional” at all about them, why let a group co-opt this term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2010, at 4:53 pm
Actually, in Israeli Jewish nomenclature “traditional” is already taken.
It refers most often to Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews who adhere to a liberal Orthodox religious practice - such as attending synagogue Saturday morning and a soccer match Saturday afternoon - while living a culturally conservative lifestyle.
Of course haredim Jews would criticize them as being far too lax in their observancem and not even Orthodox.
One last point for me: Hollywood Jew is a “proper noun”?
Perhaps as a blog title in the Jewish Journal (and, as a quick Goggle search turns up, as a prejorative on anti-Semitic Websites - which, to be clear, I am NOT IN ANY WAY equating with the Journal or Brad’s use of the term).
Grammar was never my strong point but I’d venture to say Hollywood is a modifer in this case, just as it would be if I said Hollywood Christian, Hollywood Muslim, Hollywood Baha’i, Hollywood Scientologist, or Hollywood producer.
The only proper nouns that comes immediately to mind that include the word Hollywood are The Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood Boulevard, the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and Hollywood Park.
There, I’ve said far more than enough. Ciao, and happy Gregorian New Year to all.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
December 31, 2010, at 5:02 pm
I guess the men didn’t want to be disturbed, they were in a big hurry to get to —— uh, not working…I can imagine how unpopular that Saul of Tarsus fellow might be in this neighborhood. He tossed out that line about don’t-work-don’t-eat, didn’t he? He had the idea you could be a rabbinic scholar and tent-maker? The bigger the hat the better it is to ward off a photographer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
January 1, 2011, at 4:48 pm
Judy:
Thanks. I don’t quite understand why it is perjorative but I trust you that it is. It seems like people who don’t like Jews use “Jew” as an adjective and that is what makes it offensive. I am not someone who is offended things people call me and sometimes that makes me insensitive to words that might offend others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2011, at 7:29 pm
Actually, I have written quite a bit about issues in Jewish coverage. I have just walked in the door from being in the NC mountains with no Wifi (other than sitting in a parking lot in the winter outside a mountain town library).In this case, by cell email, I did ask Brad to address the lingo in this piece. He knows the lingo turf quite well, with his professional background.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
January 2, 2011, at 12:05 am
I still don’t get why that is offensive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
January 2, 2011, at 2:41 am
The “Traditional” in Israel is used without the word “Orthodox” to describe Sefardim etc. However when you put them together, you get “Traditional Orthodox” which describes Jews who follow the traditions of Orthodox Judaism. It is not offensive, quite accurate and a lot better than “Ultra etc.” which is a bigoted way of describing observant Jews. I personally would prefer “observant” but “Traditional Orthodox” is a good second choice.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
January 2, 2011, at 4:25 pm
To misquote Buckley:
Another interesting case is “ultradispensationalist”, which keeps meaning “dispensationalist who is more extreme than the writer happens to be.”
And right here in America, there are “ultraconservatives” but no “ultraliberals”; “ultrareligious” but no “ultrairreligious”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
January 2, 2011, at 4:27 pm
Something which puzzled me is a “revised” version of the St. John Passion promoted by the National Council of Christians and Jews, where “King of the Jews” is changed to “King of the Jewish people”. Does this REALLY make it more palatable to people who might be offended? I can’t ask this on Jewish forums, as there any question is treated as an attack.
(It also keeps replacing “Jews” with “Judaeans”, as though it was a case of Judaea vs. Galilee.)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
January 2, 2011, at 4:29 pm
I didn’t expect the GR Inquisition!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
January 2, 2011, at 9:01 pm
Brad, as a long-time follower of GetReligion, and one who has occasionally read your God Blog to follow some threads more closely, I had no trouble getting the self-deprecation in your original post, and I entirely understood “Jew news” to be an inside-baseball remark directed at reporters. I think all the discussion above just illustrates your point about the difficulty of labels for the myriad sub-cultures that all self-identify as Jewish. I found your remarks and those of Ira Rifkin and David Eliezrie to give me useful additional information. The world I live in (a suburb of a 2nd-tier city in flyover country) to be one in which the only Jewish people that are visible are pretty standard Reform Jews that fit in well with the rest of the Chamber of Commerce. It is helpful to find good information here to inform my reading about the larger world.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0