The HyperPartisanship of the Jewish Journal

For over two years, I have been an avid reader of The Jewish Journal, a publication whose Purim spoof cover first caught my attention, along with the introduction of Conservative columnist and radio personality Dennis Prager.

I did not agree with many of the writers in the Journal, a growing mix of liberalism and elitist commentaries which promoted one myopic political view at the expense of other political and cultural opinions. I was never a fan of Steve Greenberg's cartoons, and most of Marty Kaplan's analyses appeared partisan as opposed to persuasive.

Yet I was pleased the Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman responded to a terse email of mine. His characterization of the paper as "trending left, or right, or otherwise" was not persuasive, but at least he responded.

In the past year,  I was privileged to find some of my views posted on-line or even printed in the Journal. The honor was a worthy one, and I am glad for the opportunity.

Yet over the past few months this year, I have become increasingly disillusioned with the political agenda which is grossly manifested in the publication, enough that I cannot help but concur with an acquaintance of mine that the paper should be called The Anti-Jewish Journal.

Chazzan Danny Maseng's slighted, slanted, and stupid reading of Parasha Shelach was reprinted, despite its overt conflict with the truth, the traditions, and the Talmudic interpretations all of the ages. Not just lazy, but insolent describes such lax editing.

The additions of David Mamet along with Dennis Prager to broaden the ideological appeal have not done enough to turn the tide of outright misrepresentations which have criss-crossed the magazine.

The empty rhetoric about gun control, the prominent attention lavished on closing books stores in West Los Angeles, yet in contrast little reporting on the "exiles" in the South Bay, is very disappointing. Long-time politician Henry Waxman is running for reelection in a district which neither he nor his politically-aligned allies in the state legislature drew for him. While Waxman is competing for the first time in a widely different constituency, the Journal has not bothered to report on the Waxman-Bloomfield contest, a campaign which has sent shock-waves around the country, suggesting that Waxman is in big trouble, yet nothing so far from the Journal.

For me, the last straw was the late July, early August cover of prominent LA-area Jews, which included a few copies of Howard Berman, but not one picture of his  winning rival in the 30th Congressional District, Brad Sherman.

Either this is hyperpartisanship waiting to be noticed, or an inexcusable oversight which demands a major soul-searching and change of leadership in The Journal.

The twelve tribes of Israel have been scattered abroad by the oppressive powers of state, intolerance, and now moral relativism, three fanatical factions which have gained considerable ground in The Jewish Journal. I am not surprised that an advertorial campaign launched last summer demanded a change of leadership.

I am not surprised that David Suissa offered an appeal for donations earlier this year. The paper's declining audience, like many "mainstream" media outlets, is suffering the backlash of well-rounded and well-informed readers who are tired of the partisan, liberal bias so pervasive in today's media.

Since a change of leadership and vision has not yet occured, a decline of readership is the only recourse left. I have no further interest in reading the paper, and I will take every step that I can to discourage others, Jew or Gentile, from reading a publication which is so blatantly one-sided as to disparage the conservative element which is prominent and growing in the Los Angeles and nation-wide Jewish community. Even Congressman Waxman has acknowledged, although for erroneous reasons, that the Jewish vote is now  more than ever up for grabs, and for good reason, too!

Of course, reading The Jewish Journal, how would anyone notice?