The story, “The Times and the Jews” in our January/February issue is a fascinating, nuanced, and important read. We’re proud of it. It has come to our attention that some readers are not reading the piece, however, because they’re stopped cold by the art, shown here, which got a full page in the magazine. Those readers see the drawing as a caricature of a Jew.
This obviously merits discussion. The first thing to say is, we are sorry that anyone was offended. If we had it to do over, we’d have chosen a different drawing. Since you don’t get second chances in the magazine business, I’ll explain our thinking then and now.
The job of the illustration was to illustrate the point of the subhead: “A vocal segment of American Jewry has long believed that the paper is unfair to Israel. Here’s why—and why they are wrong.” That vocal segment, as Neil Lewis’s article goes on to suggest, is heavily Orthodox. So what we asked for, and got, is a drawing of a man from Orthodox Judaism’s Hasidic branch reading the Times and scowling at it. The image was okayed along the way by multiple editors and art directors, a group that includes Jews and non-Jews, for what it’s worth (though not by the article’s author).
What might have made some difference is a caption, which would have further explained the subhed and made clear that we were illustrating a particular subset of Jews, not all of them. But with or without a caption we should have had second thoughts about this illustration, based on the knowledge that people bring different lenses to images around ethnicity, particularly images done in a cartoon style, and that vicious anti-Semitic images are burned into people’s brains. And also because a page away from a headline, “The Times and the Jews,” it looks like we are illustrating what “Jews” look like, caption or no caption.
Thus in publishing the piece online, we are separating it from the art, so as not to do a disservice to Neil’s excellent piece. And, of course, to avoid offending anybody else. Giving offense was the last thing we wanted to do.
It is not your place to apologize for how other people feel, but to apologize for your actions that caused those feelings. It shouldn't be "We're sorry people were offended," as their feelings are completely valid and don't need to be excused by an apology. What it should read is, "We're sorry for publishing a image that is offensive."
#1 Posted by Christine, CJR on Fri 13 Jan 2012 at 04:06 PM
What a bunch of hooey. You knew exactly what you were doing, and why. Your prejudice against Orthodox or Hassidic Jews is plain, as is your cover-up of the bias of the New York Times. What next, an article on how Jews are murdering children to bake in to their bread?
#2 Posted by Cenerentola, CJR on Mon 16 Jan 2012 at 12:11 AM
Dear Editor:
Not much an apology. How about: We are very sorry. We understand why people were offended (not sorry that they were offended) and we are sorry. Want to write and apology for your apology?
berl falbaum
#3 Posted by berl falbaum, CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 05:32 PM
the illustration is blatantly offensive and your so/called apology and explanation woefully inadequate. Whoever wrote it still doesn't get it. There are many righting Jewish critics of the Times who are not "heavily Orthodox." I personally think Times coverage has been fair and accurate. Your illustration, not so much. You deserve a huge Dart for it and for your followup note. I certainly expected better for CJR and await a real apology. I write as a journalist of more than 40 years and also, incidentally, as a Jew.
#4 Posted by Gene Meyer, CJR on Sun 18 Mar 2012 at 05:32 PM