In praise of journalistic restraint

Back in May, a Hasidic newspaper in Brooklyn airbrushed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counterterrorism Director Audrey Tomason out of that photo of a group of White House insiders watching the Osama bin Laden raid. And people freaked out about it. It caused quite the kerfuffle for the paper, Di Tzitung.

I thought the media coverage of the incident was fine, but Ira Rifkin left a comment to that post that stayed with me:

While it’s easy to criticize Di Tzitung it’s also beside the point.

Di Tzitung’s readers live in a different world, one far more insular than the world most of us frequent.

Its raison d’tre is not to inform so much as it to support a world view and its community’s religious/social standards.

Think of it as a house organ far removed from the standards of mainstream journalism, just like so many other religious publications.

I thought of it again when reading this fantastic story by the great Ari Goldman in The Jewish Week about the differences between mainstream and tabloid media coverage of the murder of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky and what was found in the Hasidic press.

The article explains how the newspaper Hamodia was on the story from the moment the boy disappeared. But once the boy was found dead, their coverage changed dramatically:

While the tabloids were on the story from the beginning, reporting the disappearance of the boy and the search that was underway, the New York Times came to it late. The Times, which generally shies away from “missing children” stories, did not write about Leiby until he was found dead. Then they pulled out all the stops.

The Times was, to be sure, more understated than the tabloids, but all the gory details of the murder were there. Over the next few days, the paper explored the story from every angle, including a front page report on what the Orthodox community has done in recent years to investigate sexual predators in its midst. Joseph Berger wrote a touching article about the ritual of shiva and Clyde Haberman did a sensitive interview with the father of another celebrated kidnap victim, Etan Patz.

Hamodia’s coverage, on the other hand, was incredibly restrained. An article about Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly’s press conference only suggested the horror without detailing it. “Every piece of information increased the pain within the press briefing room,” the unnamed Hamodia reporter wrote without telling what the information was. “Seasoned reporters – who have heard it all – were visibly shaken by the steady shower of facts.”

There are more examples of this restraint and then an explanation of why:

Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs at Agudath Israel of America and an editor at another Haredi publication, Ami Magazine, said that the restraint shown by Hamodia “was very characteristic” of such papers. “Events may be important, but grisly details are seen as unseemly to write about,” he said. “And what’s more, children read such papers too and there is a haredi reluctance to expose young kids to such details.”

The coverage of the funeral, on the other hand, is vivid. Goldman ends with the following thought:

As I read the restrained Hamodia coverage I thought that there was more involved here than just, as Rabbi Shafran said, protecting the children from the “grisly details.” Hamodia was playing a healing role in the community, much like the mainstream press did in the aftermath of the terrible events of 9/11. Remember back then? The mainstream press refrained from showing certain horrific images, like mangled body parts and people leaping to their death from the towers. The mainstream press also wrote hagiographic tributes to the fallen that made them seem more like heroes and angels than human beings.

In its coverage of the Leiby Kletzky tragedy, Hamodia reminds us that there are times for restraints, limits and self-censorship. Not everything has to be sensationalized. Mainstream journalism can learn something from them.

It was so easy to make fun of a Hasidic newspaper during the airbrushing incident. But I appreciate Goldman’s thoughtful analysis of the service newspapers provide to bereaved communities. And I agree that restraint can be a virtue. What do you think?

Print Friendly

  • Julia

    Amen.

    I didn’t know what rape was until I was 12 or so.
    In the 50s such things were not broadcast on the 15 minute TV news in the evening or the Today Show in the morning or on the front page of the newspapers. I first noticed the word in a small article on the 5th page of the local paper just above the cross-word puzzle I was doing with a friend my age. She said she thought it meant that somebody forced a woman to take her clothes off. We thought that was really bizarre.

    Today I think my 6 year old grandson knows what the word means. There’s an innocence lost. Is that a good or bad thing? Such openness and in-your-face confrontation with terrible crimes against persons does make it seem like the world is a more dangerous place for kids. Is it or does it now just appear that way because of all the 24 hour detailed coverage?

  • Dave G.

    It was so easy to make fun of a Hasidic newspaper during the airbrushing incident.

    Actually I saw no need. It isn’t as if that doesn’t happen in other cases, though it may be more subtle and difficult to find. Of course sometimes it isn’t. But I wondered when it happened what all the fuss was about.

  • Martha

    “And I agree that restraint can be a virtue.”

    Yes. We don’t really need the gory details; often, even if it’s not intended as such, it acts as titillation.

    A young child was horribly murdered. That’s all we need to know. I can’t see how it helps the family or anyone else to have the exact details of what happened, blow-by-blow, splashed all over the papers.

    Save it for the ‘true crimes’ cash-in book, guys.

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat/ Nicole Neroulias

    Aren’t both kinds of journalism important: the informative, no-holds barred kind and the healing kind? I don’t want to be coddled by editors, even if the news is grim. And there’s certainly a valid argument that efforts to keep unpleasant details from readers (photos of returning coffins of U.S. soldiers, for example) has unintended consequences on the public sphere.

    Not to mention the fact that nowadays, readers simply go online or to their preferred 1/700 TV channel and access their preferred type of reporting they want — partisan vs. middle-ground, sensationalist vs. restrained, religious vs. secular, nationalistic vs. global, etc. Insular communities can remain insular, but I’m sure some Hasidic Jews are looking to outside media outlets for more on this story.

  • Grumpy

    Isn’t there a difference between toning down the words used in writing about reality, and altering reality (airbrushing photos)?

  • http://rub-a-dub.blogspot.com matt

    “And what’s more, children read such papers too and there is a haredi reluctance to expose young kids to such details.”

    THis is exactly why I don’t listen to the news when my boys are around. I miss my several hours of NPR a day, but they do not need to be exposed to the horrors of the world.

  • Jerry

    First a nit: Haredi should be capitalized here unless he was really using the name of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group generically.

    there is a haredi reluctance to expose young kids to such details.”

    To your main question: restraint is a virtue. But lying is another matter which was Grumpy’s point. When any media outlet starts acting like the media did in Soviet Russia, altering facts to suit ideology or theology, they’ve crossed a line from journalism into being a propaganda outlet and should be treated as such.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    I thought this media outlet’s video of Norwegians using roses to demonstrate their grief was a touching example of the service media can provide toward healing.

  • Martha

    Facts versus propaganda is an important distinction, but no-one is saying that such stories (or any stories) covering crimes should omit the reasons, just the details that really don’t benefit anyone.

    You can justifiably say that so-and-so has been arrested on charges of murder. You can say that it was the sexual assualt and murder of a child. You can even say the name and age of the child.

    But who really needs to read about blood spattered to a height of feet and the exact number of blows and how many pieces the body was hacked into? I used to eat up such details when reading stories like that. I regret it now.

    Let me give you what I hope is an instructive instance; currently, in the United Kingdom, there’s a whole scandal that’s boiled over into what may become a political crisis to do with newspapers, specifically the papers owned by Rupert Murdoch (you may have heard of him).

    This was a Sunday broadsheet turned tabloid called “The News of the World” which, even from its foundation in 1843, ran as a populist sex’n'sensation rag. This caused it to acquire the nickname (as used in “Private Eye”) of “The News of the Screws”.

    Sex scandals, celebrity gossip and the juicier the dirt the better were the fuel it ran on, and this caused it to go to ever more extremes for its “scoops” which, from 2006, embroiled it in phone-hacking scandals (that is, it hired private investigators and encouraged journalists to hack into people’s mobile phones to access their voicemail).

    The reason this particular scandal has blown up now is that they hacked into the phone of a missing schoolgirl (subsequently murder victim) back in 2002 and allegedly deleted some of the messages on her voicemail, which both misled her family and the police as to whether she was still alive and destroyed evidence. They also hacked the phones of some of the relatives of people who died in the 2005 London bombings.

    The fallout from this has resulted in the closure of that paper, withdrawal of Murdoch’s bid to takeover BSkyB, the resignation of both the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and goes as far as tainting the Prime Minister David Cameron for his association with an ex-editor of the paper as Conservative Party director of communications.

    All over trying to find even more and better details to tempt the appetites of the public in these kinds of sensational public cases.

  • Ira Rifkin

    Mollie;

    Glad you noticed Goldman’s essay. I posted it as a comment to a tmatt July 17 piece on the Leiby Kletsky tragedy, but it seemed to go unnoticed then.

    Here’s an interesting amd illuminating comparison between how the mainstream secular media and the Haredi press have played the story written by one-time (and briefly) GR contributor Ari Goldman. It’s worth considering:

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/haredi_sensitivity.

    Any comments?

    It’s worth remembering the culture of journalism can change from neighborhood to neighborhood, community to community.

    The world is way bigger than we sometimes imagine.