Special Report a Missed Opportunity

The World Conference of Jewish Journalists which met here at the Beit Agron for three days last week had all the ingredients that make for a successful gathering. There were more than 100 Israeli, Yiddish and English-Jewish journalists and editors from 15 countries who were brimming with enthusiasm when the conclave began. Collectively, they represented the experience and expertise of decades of Jewish journalism; all devoted and dedicated to the task of dealing with all the nuances of the identity, continuity and security of the Jewish people in the diaspora and the State of Israel.

But by the time the conference ended the overwhelming majority of the participants agreed that the forum where they had hoped to deal with the issues and problems they face in making the Jewish press around the world an even more efficient and effective medium for gathering and disseminating vital news had been a voyage in routine, nostalgia and frustration.

Many problems the participants had hoped to deal with were not even mentioned. Most notable was the absence of any discussion dealing with the plight of the Jewish press in countries controlled by right or left-wing dictatorships, especially in Latin America. Worst of all, journalists whose function it is to communicate found themselves stymied in their efforts to communicate to each other. More frequently than not they talked at cross-purposes.

This was not entirely the fault of the conference organizers — journalists such as Moshe Ron, chairman of the World Federation of Jewish Journalists which sponsored the conclave, Arieh Tzimuki, executive of the Federation, and Yitzhak Shargil of Yediot Achronot and Tel Aviv correspondent for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They and others on the organizing committee worked diligently for months to try to assure the success of the gathering.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Almost from the outset it was clear that the conference was a gathering of journalists who were in proximity but not togetherness. There were actually three blocs of journalists and editors — Israelis. Yiddish and English-writing — who spoke at each other but rarely to each other. Their interests and perspectives could not be resolved nor even cross-fertilized.

The Israelis sought to convince the others that news from Israel published abroad should contain nothing which would embarrass the Jewish communities nor make Israel look bad in the eyes of its enemies. The Yiddish journalists, with the notable exception of the Jewish Daily Forward representatives, seemed to be locked into a time frame that ended somewhere just before World War II. They were caught up in delivering speeches about the good old days when the Yiddish press was influential, bemoaning the fact that less and less Jews are writing or reading Yiddish and campaigning to convince all present to return to “mameh loshn.”

The English-writing journalists, almost all from the United States, dealt realistically with the need to expand and deepen the coverage of world Jewish events, the necessity of utilizing the most advanced techniques and technologies for gathering and disseminating the news, finding ways to attract young people to the field of Jewish journalism and the obligation to report on all nuances of Jewish life both in Israel and the diaspora in an objective and impartial manner.

Another impediment to the success of the conference was that there were too many ceremonial speeches by Israeli officials which broke no new ground. In addition, the working sessions consisted of eight or nine panelists and no discussions from the floor. Many of those who spoke did so with authority, fluency, and even audacity. But their views and suggestions had no practical results. Yet, out of the welter of speeches by the journalists there emerged a consensus of the strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli and American Jewish press which helped lay the basis for a rethinking of the aims and needs of both.

ISRAELI PRESS UNDER FIRE

The Israeli press was castigated by this writer and others, including Israeli journalists, for failing to reflect properly the situation of world Jewry. Shargil stated that not enough is being done in the Israeli press “to give us a glimpse of Jewish life abroad. We learn from textbooks about the world of Sholom Aleichem and the shtetle that is no more. But we do not learn from our press about the Jewish world as it exists today and our Israeli youth is ignorant about it.”

Levi-Itzhak Hayerushalmi, chairman of the Tel Aviv Journalists Association, berated the Israeli press for devoting more space to the problems of India and China than to the worldwide Jewish communities. “This reveals large measure the poverty of our own Jewish life in Israel and a certain disdain for Jewish life in the diaspora. In order to fulfill the task of making the Israeli press reflective of world Jewry we must seek ways to increase cooperation between Israeli and diaspora journalists,” he declared.

In an address at the home of President Ephraim Katzir, this writer criticized the Israeli press for phrase-mongering, playing fast and loose with facts, failing to verify statements, scandalizing the news and succumbing to a “galut mentality in reverse.” The Israeli press, he noted, is highly effective in investigating corruption and machinations in government circles yet fails to consistently or effectively deal with the quality of Israeli life, both in its contributions to the arts and sciences and the social problems which affect the average Israeli.

Editors and journalists seem to employ a form of self-censorship in dealing with such problems as the social gap, the problems of new immigrants, the situation of Sephardic Jews and women and the restlessness and alienation of the younger generation because in dealing with these problems it would make Israel look bad in the eyes of the “goyim.” This is where the nominal and formal freedom of the Israeli press tends to break down and where the “galut mentality in reverse” takes over.

The press, this writer continued, should deal with these problems because Israel’s enemies don’t have to read the Israeli press to know what’s going on in the Jewish State. By avoiding the more unpleasant elements of Israel’s social development the non-Jewish press abroad reports about them out of context and frequently catches Jewish communities by surprise. But if the Israeli press dealt with these problems it could provide an insight into their origins and the methods of trying to cope and resolve them.

In addition, he said, the Israeli press is becoming to all intents and purposes less and less of a Jewish press in its reliance on reports from abroad that appear in the non-Jewish rather than in what appears in the Jewish press and Jewish news agencies. “The Jewish press around the world, especially the American Jewish press, is our press, but it isn’t treated that way. We have the skilled journalists, the technologies and the information that the non-Jewish press does not possess because it does not focus on news of Jewish interest as does the Jewish press. The Jewish press aboard, especially in America, is a compelling factor in bringing vital news to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Yet it seems to be treated with disdain in Israel.”

THE JEWISH PRESS IN AMERICA

Focusing on the Jewish press in the United States, this writer told another session of the conference that for the first time in decades “our press is a powerhouse and generally respected for its credibility by the non-Jewish press and community.” The American Jewish press, he said, including the JTA which services some 80 weeklies, is regularly monitored by the White House, the State Department, foreign embassies, influential columnists and the Soviet and Arab press representatives in Washington and the United Nations. They read it to find out what is happening in the Jewish communities and what is the thinking of the Jewish leaders.

As examples he cited the fact that during the Presidential election campaign representatives from both the Ford and Carter camps called the JTA and many weeklies to discuss news developments and that frequently news dispatches in the JTA and the Jewish weeklies concerning both President Ford and Jimmy Carter were carried earlier and in greater depth than in the non-Jewish press. Another example was that the House Foreign Relations Committee issued an extensive report on anti-Semitism in Argentina which carried two lengthy articles on the situation there from Jewish weeklies that had been distributed by the JTA.

Still another example was a front page article in the Hartford Daily Courant dealing with Premier Yitzhak Rabin’s suggestion that Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D. Conn.) act as a Middle East mediator between Israel and Egypt. The article credited the JTA and its Jerusalem correspondent, Gil Sedan. Despite all this, the Jewish press in America is frequently bogged down in its reports on local community developments because editors and reporters are deluged with press releases from organizational spokespeople that have little if any news value apart from keeping local names in the press.

In addition, this writer noted, too many organizational spokespersons are more ecstatic about getting into print in major non Jewish dailies than in the Jewish press. “The Jewish press has to make it clear that it, and not the daily press, is the voice of the Jewish community.” he said. “The Jewish press has to make it clear that it will not go along with the implied view of too many organizational leaders that it is only an after-thought instead of the genuine expression of Jewish concern on all levels.”

DISSENT, DISPUTATION URGED

This writer and other speakers at the conference, urged the Jewish press around the world not to shy away from dissent and disputation. They observed that these were in the best tradition of Jewish life and that both elements are assurances of a vital and viable Jewish press. The Jewish press can be not only disseminators of news but educators and organizers of the Jewish community.

The Jewish press in America, with its talented and dedicated editors, journalists and publishers can become catalytic agents in mobilizing the communities on issues of vital concern to the Jewish people and Israel. The Jewish press, it was also noted, can become command posts for inspiring young Jews to become more deeply involved in their Jewish heritage and culture and to inspire a whole new generation of Jews to become Jewish journalists.

The conference did have one salutary effect: it brought together journalists who, despite their differences in outlooks and backgrounds, diversity of political and social conditions under which they work in their respective countries and despite the rivalries between the three blocs, came away with the fuller realization that nothing in the world today is alien to Jewish journalism and that all social and political developments impinges on Jewish life.