Opinion & Commentary:
A letter from the publisher
Nov. 23, 2007

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives us freedom of the press. That is, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

It's right up there, in the same amendment as freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It's that important.

If a letter is sent to us, we can print it. The First Amendment says that.

This paper, through all its ownerships, has made a special effort to try to publish almost every letter.

But with that amendment, with that public trust, in this very special business, comes special responsibilities.

News organizations always have more news than they can fit. There is so much news from all over and only a limited amount of space. So editors must be selective. They must edit down the choices. They must act as gatekeepers for their readers. They must decide, based on the mission of the newspaper, what are the best choices of stories to be published that day.

It's not censorship; it's editorial responsibility.

The Jewish State is a special newspaper, an informative yet compassionate newspaper. It is a collaboration between staff members and readers. It's goal is to be a journal of Jewish life in central New Jersey. And that cannot be done alone.

But it continues to be an evolving product. That means we continue to learn and experiment -- and we make mistakes.

Such an error was made on the Opinion & Commentary page of our Nov. 9 issue, where this newspaper allowed a writer to take pot shots at a highly respected individual, Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg of Edison. We published a letter headlined "Real heroes of Jewish community don't beg for recognition." In it, the writer wrote a nasty letter attacking Rabbi Rosenberg of Edison and stopped along the way to drop an offensive characterization of Reform Jews.

Pure and simple: The letter was hate. Whether you agreed with the point of the letter or not as capsulated in the headline, the hate got in the way.

On Aug. 30, 1996, in the first issue of The Jewish State, the newspaper published a mission statement, an explanation of what it was and what it intended to become.

It said it was a newspaper for "all" Jews. "Instead of dividing the area's Jewish populations by geography, religious observance and affiliation, we will seek out common ground while celebrating the special qualities of each of us," the statement said in part. "We pledge to deliver a newspaper that is informative, provocative, dynamic and most importantly -- useful.

"With fair and accurate reporting, compassion and decency, we aim to become a loyal friend and a trusted adviser to our readers. ...

"Through pointed commentaries, guest columns and letters to the editor, we will stimulate discussion and urge participation to encourage debate on issues of Jewish interest.

"Our goal is to provide information you need to make important decisions as a Jew, a citizen, a parent, or child, and as a participant in the working world…We urge your participation and welcome your comments."

We still stand by that mission because it still rings true today.

Since the founding of The Jewish State, the newspaper has taken special steps to encourage free and open debate about issues while trying to avoid personal attacks. Going after issues is fine. Attacking people is NOT.

Did the letter writer have the right to write that letter? Without question.

Did The Jewish State have the right to publish it? Absolutely.

Should we have published it? Absolutely not.

It should have joined a small pile of similar letters that have come in over the years and never made into the newspaper. These attack letters contribute nothing to community debates over issues. They simply spew hate.

If the letter writer was upset because a rabbi's wife wrote to laud her husband, say that and move on. But don't add on a collection of cheap, offensive shots. That is not in the best interests of the readers, the newspaper, or the letter writer.

Running that letter was an error in judgment. We take no stand on whether the opinion -- once you find it under all that hate -- was valid. That's not the point.

And for that we sincerely apologize. I have expressed my apologies directly to Rabbi Rosenberg and his wife for this error.

Newspapers and the people who run them learn by making mistakes. We will learn from this one.