The Philadelphia Inquirer profiles two Jewish newspapers and their editors : Jonathan Tobin, of the Jewish Exponent, and J.J. Goldberg of the Forward.
Fairly solid compare and contrast: Exponent as longtime voice of Philly community, Forward as national voice in the feisty tradition of its Yiddish forbear. Tobin as the politically conservative pundit who hangs a Jabotinsky portrait in his office, Goldberg as a gadfly who revels in the “bad boy” image of the Forward. The article was a little soft on the Exponent’s position as a paper, like mine, with corporate ties to the local Jewish federation, and takes it on faith when Tobin says the paper does “hard-nosed” reporting. (I’m sure it does, and I like to think we do, also, but I know there’s a lot more to be said about the compromises inherent in the newspaper-federation relationship.)
One misleading and illuminating contrast:
The two editors also exhibit stark differences in their political stances. “Editorially, we are a pro-Israel newspaper,” says Tobin. “We write from a Zionist frame of reference that represents the consensus of the community. I feel very strongly about that.”
In contrast, says Goldberg, an ex-kibbutznik, “we’re not here to defend Israel. We’re here to tell you - on the assumption that you care about Israel - what’s really going on in Israel.” Similarly, he advises, “we’re not here to defend or convince people of Zionism, though personally I’m a card-carrying Zionist.”
As its former managing editor I can tell you that the Forward comes from no less a “Zionist frame of reference” than the Exponent, if you define Zionism as support for a ”publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people,” to borrow Herzl’s phrase.
The Forward does Israel the courtesy of treating it as a normal country, subject to the same victories and setbacks as any other, and probably more of the former than the latter. And it gives its readers credit by assuming they care about Israel enough to want know its story in depth.
The difference hinted at in the above exchange is not between Zionism and its opposite, or “pro” and neutral, but between modes of “advocacy.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, to take the example of a non-Jewish paper, undoubtedly believes in a just, free, well-governed, and socially and economically sustainable Philadelphia. That is implicit, or should be, even when it is investigating corruption at City Hall or exposing a faulty public policy. I assume the paper is ”pro-Philadelphia,” and wouldn’t take an unflattering profile of its mayor or police chief as evidence that it is anti-.
And yet, there isn’t much of an “anti-Philadelphia” sentiment out there, in the sense that there are well-armed nations and well-organized political factions that regret the city’s very existence and work or at least yearn for its destruction. Israel has no such luxury.
So Jonathan is probably right that papers like ours have to keep up the lonely work of stating and restating Israel’s cause. But when messiah comes, I hope all of our papers read like JJ’s.
JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 
