We are all familiar with the diametrically opposed ways an event concerning Israel is reported worldwide and even in Israel. We are all aware of the disproportionate amount of reportage on Israeli issues in world media, and of the critical attitude of many of us towards that media, especially when what is reported is antagonistic to the Jewish State. We have all seen pro-Zionist speakers or panelists interrupted repeatedly or given too little speaking time so that their views are not fairly heard. We are also familiar with the fact that different sectors in Israel respond differently to the way our country’s defense dilemmas are covered. Polls that show the relative distribution of these opinions are published on a regular basis. All in all, the political, international and economic situations are broken down for us statistically and publicized, objectively or not, depending on who presents them, who collects the information and writes the questions - and on what each of us considers objective.
What we don’t think about, or at least I never did until reading this book, is that the same variables apply to the coverage of religious issues in Israel. Certainly in the one and only Jewish State, consciousness of the way religious subjects are brought to the public’s attention should be of utmost importance. And that Is why Yoel Cohen’s book Rabbis, Reporters and the Public in the Digital Holyland (Routledge publishers) is a welcome addition to our knowledge about how religion is viewed, reported and discussed in today’s Israeli media. The writer does not simply inform us about the way items on the subject are brought to our attention, he invites us to a thorough analysis comparing the attitudes, reactions and behaviors of rabbis, journalists and the public vis a vis media coverage of religion in the digital age, what is and is not covered, and how.
The thoroughness of the analysis, backed by statistics gleaned in part from questionnaires to rabbis, journalists and the public which the writer composed and collected himself, and including content analysis through four Israeli news sources serving different sectors - as well as radio, websites and even weeklies and weekly Torah-oriented fliers, dapei parshat shavua, is further enhanced by interviews with rabbis, journalists on various levels, public figures and leaders.
In itself, this is remarkable, as are the many questions raised and researched in depth addressed to distinctly defined groups - divided by sex, age, religious stream, Ashkenazi or Sephardi background. Turning to different groups for their opinions often leads to results that will surprise the reader. Interestingly, the comparison of media sources shows the way things have changed during our times, not only in the variety of existing sources but in the public’s role in shaping opinion through the social web.
It really makes one stop and think, wondering along with the writer: Can this plethora of media opportunity can be directed to lead to mutual respect and cooperation based on shared values that reach out beyond editors deciding whether something is newsworthy or not from a ratings perspective? Can the plethora of websites and Torah information on the web make spiritual, philosophical and Torah content as well as in depth coverage of conflicts and other issues more interesting to the public, much of which sees religion of secondary importance in the news (and since journalists are a mirror of Israeli sectors, they feel the same way) now that its availability has been revolutionized?
A few examples, although far from covering the scope of the book, will elucidate the writer’s commendable thoroughness. Since in this reviewer’s opinion, the questions are even more interesting than the answers, the emphasis is on them with the expectation that the reader will find the answers by reading the book..
1.Rabbis:
Interestingly, the writer found that rabbis have an interest in entering into a dialogue with the journalistic world, but he also found that the problems are manifold.
It appears that the most crucial problem the three hubs of rabbinic presence - the rabbis themselves, the chief rabbis, and the rabbinical courts - have with appearing on religious issues in the spoken media is unsolvable in today’s media culture. They explained that the contrast between a rabbi’s traditional method of learning/teaching/explaining a Torah issue - thorough, complex, raising questions, citing previous answers - is exactly the opposite of trying to explain a religious issue in the space of a soundbite (if not interrupted in the middle of it!). Explaining halakhic topics or matters of faith so that listeners can identify with them is not possible in news broadcasts or panel discussions and is not only disrespectful to the Torah, but sisyphic. Articles, podcasts, zoom and youtube recordings can solve that problem, but mostly reach an audience that looks for them to begin with.
Other questions posed to the rabbis (and to journalists and the public) in the sample led to enlightening answers. For example, do rabbis think non-observant journalists are hostile a priori? And are they (the writer turned to journalists to find out, see below)? Do journalists present a negative view of religion? What level of religious literacy does a journalist need? Does an observant journalist make for an objective journalist?
What are the other problems rabbis have with media in general? Do rabbis think media coverage is a threat to the cohesion of their communities? To modesty? To values? Do they believe red lines should be imposed?
It seems rabbis do advise filters to their congregations and students. And they mentioned the more subtle problems that emerge because while there are reporters whose assigned field is religion, they rarely define items dealing with mitzvas as such, reporting from a historic, uncommitted viewpoint instead.
One way Israel’s religious population developed to meet those challenges is through the creation of parallel media and journalistic worlds, tailored to the religious Zionist, hardal, and haredi sectors. This deepens division, but since many rabbis see secular media as vulgar and anti-religious, they still consider separation a worthwhile idea.
The writer asked if rabbis think their appearances on secular media affects audiences they could not reach without it. And he also asked what they think about “Rabbi Google": do they respond to online halakhic questions, what is their opinion of zoom Torah lectures, of the idea of a virtual minyan?
2. And the media representatives were asked, among other things:
What are the criteria for reporting religious issues, do media report only something that seems newsworthy to the general population, and what is the breakdown between the different media on this question?
How does it happen that tens of thousands of people go to the Kotel for a prayer vigil and are not even mentioned in the secular media? That is just one example of religious events being ignored and although the war brought about some change, the author feels there is more that could be done by energetic PR.
Do journalists feel they need to know Judaism in depth or have experienced a Torah lifestyle and learning on a high level to know how to report on religious subjects?
(I remembered the hysterical coverage several years ago of the Torah’s laws pertaining to an isha yefat toar - comely captive woman - and how the IDF Chief Rabbi found himself attacked by feminist journalists who had no idea of the ethical or historical background involved).
The writer’s questionnaires found that few reporters consider themselves antireligious. Most take part in holidays and Jewish life cycle events, reflecting the what the majority of the population does.
3. What about the public?
The Israeli public is divided into sectors whose differences come to the fore in media consumption:
It turns out that the religious public and its media have a problem with slander, gossip and modesty (lashon hara and tzniut), the very things that get high ratings and add viewers and listeners. Freedom of expression is not absolute in observant Judaism, an irreconcilable barrier that the law barely affects. A resulting question concerns observant reporters and these issues - how do they avoid damaging religious values?
Where does one draw the line on the public’s right to know? Its demand for accountability? Is there a right not to know? A right to privacy? What about a scandal in the religious community - who should know and when? What if it is not true and was publicized? What about shaming for agunot?
What issues attract the most attention? Controversies, of course, like those on religion and state, Shabbat in the public sphere, the haredi draft, budget allocations for yeshivas, conversion, agunot. There is also non hard news: the weekly Torah portion, archaeology, religious party squabbles, holy places, and Jewish (ethnic) cooking. There is a difference between the Orthodox community and others on these issues, and the writer took pains to find out reform and conservative views.
In all, this is an informative, carefully researched book on an important and up to now neglected subject. Yoel Cohen, Full Professor (Emeritus) in the School of Communication at Ariel University, Israel, as well as convenor of the Religion and Communication working group in the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). is particularly suited for the challenge. His publications include God, Jews and the Media: Religion and Israel's Media; Spiritual News: Reporting Religion Around the World; and The Handbook of Religion and Communication.
Professor Cohen also expresses the hope that despite all the differences found in his methodical and thorough research into the subject , only some of which are brought in this review, commonalities such as values, ethics, shared history and a demand for accuracy, quality and balance could lead to more unity in our society as it moves through the digital world in which we live. Let us hope he is right.
