Op-Ed: Assassination by Cliché
Character assassination is a misuse of freedom of the press. Especially when the assassination is based on speculation.
Shortly after the New York Post skillfully assassinated the character of Menachem Stark, it ran an article entitled “Post’s report on slain… draws harsh criticism.” The article provides an explanation of why the Post claims they do not need to apologize for their questionable journalism. The article quotes “a spokesman for the paper.” No name! What is the matter? Is there no one at the Post who will come out and say, “I am accountable for the front cover and inside story about Menachem Stark. I have listened to the calls for an apology, but I stand by my decision in this matter as being responsible journalism”? Either that or an apology. Nope, only a nameless spokesman. And no apology.
Our unnamed spokesman for the Post states: “The Post does not say Mr. Stark deserved to die…” I disagree. Words are tools for communicating ideas. When a cliché is used, it carries more meaning than the simple definition of each individual word. And then you have formatting. The graphic artists – I prefer to call them layout staff – at the Post, know how to use fonts to emphasize and exaggerate words.
On the cover of the Sunday, January 5th edition of the Post, five words were in a large, easy to read font. The five words could be absorbed in a glance. Additional words, which might be considered an explanation to justify the five words, are in much smaller fonts. So the message was an easy one. A cliché in large font so that even passersby would absorb the headline featured in the newsstand. The questionable words being: “Who didn’t want him dead?” And the Post spokesman said the paper did not say he deserved to die. Really? The cliché implies that no one wants him alive. Had the paper said, in a font of equal size – but they are wrong. Then I could agree that they would not have said he deserved to die. But the message is clear. If everyone wants him dead, the only reasonable conclusion is, he deserved to die. I can’t see any other way to understand the message.
The smaller words above the headline begin with the word ‘slumlord.’ Now the Post has moved from using a cliché to convey a message, to utilizing word association. About a slumlord, you might really be able to ask, who wouldn’t want a slumlord dead? The word slumlord carries with it connotations that are sickening. Slumlords are land owners who charge high rents and provide below standard living conditions. They cheat their poor tenants. When the Post uses the word, are they using it because they know that Menachem Stark was a cruel slumlord? Or did they know he was a landlord of low cost rentals and they figured that was enough to call him a slumlord, with all its connotations? And there is something else that bothers me about the word slumlord. If slumlords are charging exorbitant rents, then why don’t the people rent elsewhere? Or could it be, that the rents aren’t so high? That not all low cost landlords are slumlords who are cruel to their tenants?
In his article “What’s Wrong with the New York Post’s Menachem Stark Story?” author Daniel Greenfield writes, “The New York Post calls Menachem Stark a slumlord. That’s a meaningless term in New York City’s combative landlord-tenant wars where lawsuits come easy, non-profit advocacy groups are eager to get involved and everyone raises their accusations to 11.
“Anyone who deals with renting apartments to low income residents is going to be called a slumlord and sued sooner or later. It’s an entire industry and a fact of life.”
But the damage is done. The cliché and the word association on the front page have clinched it, and have lynched Menachen Stark’s character, without even taking the article into account. All that has to be done, is look at the front page and you know that this slumlord deserved to die. And you get to see his face, up close. With such a headline, you would expect to see a picture of a person doing an act of cruelty. Nope. Not this time. You see a man in a hat worn by Jews of Williamsburg and sidecurls worn by Jews of Williamsburg. We don’t even see a picture of a building with obvious violations. No, the source of the guilt deserving of death can only be identified in the picture by the hat and the hair of a typical Jew in Williamsburg. A picture makes a more powerful impression. This picture leaves no doubt as to who everyone wants dead. A so far unnamed religious Jew. A typical example. And the Post is standing by their headline – Who wouldn’t want him dead?
The headline on the article itself uses capital letters: “GONE BUT NOT FORGIVEN.” People might want to feel sympathy for someone who is abducted and murdered, even if the victim had unscrupulous business practices. (Some readers might even relate to unscrupulous business practices. And even some writers, who call themselves journalists, might have unscrupulous practices.) But the Post does not want sympathy for today’s victim, so they put in your face that Menachem Stark was someone whose deeds were not forgivable, even in death.
Then there is another headline below, with another cliché. It says that the slain slumlord had a list of enemies a mile long. A mile long. Now, readers are smart enough to know the list is not really a mile long. So no one will claim the Post is lying. But the message got across without using lies because the cliché took care of it. The implication is that Menachem Stark had many enemies. Only the material in the article, upon close examination, cannot substantiate the claim. But many people only read the headlines and look at the pictures. And of the ones who read the article, few take the time to examine the material closely.
What is the Post doing? Why is it so important that they aggressively assassinate the character of their victim? The story is gruesome enough, without their exaggerations, to sell plenty of papers. Or is plenty of papers not enough for the Post? Greed? Will this story satisfy their greed? I wonder if they enjoy taking advantage of the lack of sophistication of their readers? A reflection of the way slumlords allegedly take advantage of their tenants.
The confirmation to verify that “Stark made plenty of enemies over the years” begins with six highlighted points. The first one mentions a defaulted loan and a long court proceeding. Long court proceedings are frustrating, but not usually the cause of murder. Even the amount, twenty-nine million, is not excessive these days in commercial real estate in New York. But few Post readers would know that. For the everyday person, even one million dollars is a lot of money.
The second point speaks about complaints and violations. From reading the article I understood that the numbers given are from the time Stark took possession of the buildings until the present. We are not given the dates of acquisition, or if these violations were in existence at the time of purchase. So when it says there are a 148 violations, it means over a number of years. But the article does clarify that only 49 are still open. The trick is that the article states all these violations are on 17 properties. So even the 49 is a steep number for 17 buildings. Unless a reader is closely examining the given evidence, they will not realize that the 17 buildings actually represent close to a thousand units. That changes the ratio. Forty-nine open violations, for a thousand units, over ten years, seems skimpy when dealing with low income housing.
The next point is that one of his buildings was shut down. And this is a motive for murder? Let’s not lose track of what why we being fed this information. The Post needs to prove a mile long list of serious enemies with murderous intention, so they can validate their headline, “Who didn’t want him dead?”
The next point is about a building that had nearly 20 people dying in the late 1990’s. If Stark had owned the building at the time of the deaths, I am pretty sure the Post would have told us. In addition to the illusion that Stark was the owner at the time of the deaths, since this point is being made right after mention of a building being hazardous to life, the insinuation would be that the deaths were caused by the building being hazardous to life. As if there are no other causes of death in the slums of New York. To sum up. The flow of the article gives the reader the impression that Stark owned the building at the time of the 20 people dying and the cause of death was the living conditions of the building. Neither of which is likely to be the truth.
The next point is entitled “Shark sightings”. I am not sure if that is the Post’s attempt at humor. An unnamed source said that Menachem Stark gives high interest loans to desperate people. If his borrowers are desperate, it means they have no one else to go to. He is willing to lend them the money. The higher the risk, the higher the rate. That’s normal. What’s not normal is to give high risk loans in the first place – which is why most people turn down these desperate souls. Yet the Post reports that Stark’s loaning money was a reason for people to want him dead.
The final point describes Stark engaging in business transactions which are the illegal. The Post gives no sources. How is it that the Post can print this as fact, as if it is common knowledge, and the authorities have allowed it to go unhindered? I wonder, did the Post just add this on because it is something that might have happened.
The rest of the accusations in the article are all based on unnamed sources. The tragedy of this article reaches beyond the readers of the Post. The baseless accusations in the Post became the foundation for other publications to embellish upon. The words of the Post became the assumed reality. There is no doubt that the editors at the Post are skilled and accomplished. If only they would turn their talents around and use them to make the world a better place.
As quoted above, referring to the Post claiming they did not say Mr. Stark deserved to die, they finish their sentence with “our reporting showed that he had many enemies, which may have led to the commission of this terrible crime.” They justify their irresponsible headlines because of the findings of their reporting. Their reporting. All hearsay. Their reporting, even with the help of nameless sources, they do not specify the many enemies who would be likely to commission this terrible crime. And I disagree with their premise about a list of enemies. The murder seems to have been done by professionals. I am not familiar with the assassination industry – but I would think the murder was commissioned by a single enemy. But the Post came up with the mile long list theory because it fed into their vicious headline.
The New York Post does not think it needs to apologize for a dramatic implication that someone deserves to die, with a wider implication that all who have the same identifiable symbols also deserve to die. It is my understanding that the Post’s customary journalistic style contains unidentified informers and bombastic presentation. I contend that this story could have been reported, with the information from the unnamed sources, and in a way that was flashy, without losing respect for human life. I understand the Post serves a demographic that feasts on spicy reporting. But I respect the Post readers with the assumption they do not need words that justify a most heinous crime.
Freedom of speech is a gift to be treasured – to be honored with honesty, integrity and courage – with respect for the living, and respect for the deceased.
declasse' intelectual
So!!!What else is new in today’s world??????
oy
I didn’t even bother reading this op-ed. It looks long and cumbersome. If you have something to write about this issue why don’t you write a real article instead of this op-ed hullaballo. Op-ed just seems like an excuse not to have to write a decent well formatted article
rsa
if you see anything written by Aliza Bas Menachem, you will know that its worth reading, for many reasons. She is highly intelligent, and only writes when she has something worthwhile to share.
Thank you RSA
RSA – Thank you for your kind words and your respect for my writing.
I am pleased you find my topics worthwhile.
Thanks again! Aliza
crown heights landlords
I hope the ch slumlords will step up their attitude!! and the way they deal!!
RYK
Well written and very true. worth reading despite the length!
RMD
The excuse given by the Post is that they were merely quoting someone within the police department with their headline.
So, where are the quotation marks?
i agree
well worth reading! unfortunately everyone hates the Jews. They are jealous of the successes, but don’t understand and don’t want to know about the hard work that one puts in!
Aliza Bas Menachem
Your op-ed is very well written. Your points are very
well taken. I am just wondering where this can be
printed so that other Yidden can read it. Both the
self hating American Jews need to read this article
as well as the typical Chassidishe Yid . I can’t wait for
the murderers to be found and punished.
Anonymous
Thank you for reading my article and for your positive feedback.
I emailed the article to some Jewish news outlets, but so far, this website is the only posting I know about.
If you send this link to newspapers and websites you know about, and ask them to post/print it – they might realize that it is an article that people – in addition to the author – want to have publicized.
Thanks again, Aliza
you can help...
Thank you for your positive feedback. It is always encouraging for me that people share the concerns that I find important.
There is a way that I think you – and others – can help. Although I sent this article to a number of media outlets, to my knowledge, this is the only website that has posted it so far.
Thank you crownheights(dot)info!
I think that if readers would email the link to other papers and websites and tell them they think this article is important for them to publicize – they might be inclined to post/print it. It has more power when it is not only coming from the author.
If you want to coordinate where to send the link, I can be reached on FaceBook.
Thanks again, Aliza
mum
the family should sue them
spd
well written, intelligent, insightful.
I have to say thankyou to Aliza bas Menachem.
Can’t help but say that the first line caught me: Character assassination is a misuse of freedom of the press. Especially when the assassination is based on speculation.
If I had thousands to spend, i would probably pay to post that, how true.
we need more writers who can expose such thoughts. Well done indeed.
No Money Needed
SPD – You are welcome. It seems you are someone who realizes how much effort goes into an article like this. I appreciate your appreciation. Thank you.
There is a way to help the situation – even without money.
If a few people would get together and go to Jewish stores that sell the New York Post, and request that they cancel their distribution of the Post and additionally, post a notice that because of the front page coverage of the Stark story, they are no longer selling the NYPost. When questioned about it, they could refer to my article.
I know of one place that did post such a notice. I hope there are more and that there will be even more.
Thanks again, Aliza
very true!
this article is so well written-thank you!!!
YMSP
There’s a need to take on these wannabee-thugs-with-keyboards. They’ve hurt shluchim with wild accusations and at this point I’d imagine there’s a chezkas kashrus on anyone who they attack. Shmarya especially loves posting baseless slander so that when someone googles a shliach – or any frum rabbi – his garbage pops up. He’s gone so low as to print provably false allegations made in divorce/custody cases and of course refuses to take them down when given full proof that they’re false.
These people have no qualms about ruining lives and Shmarya in particular hates frum people with such a passion that he justifies even clearly disproven slander by thinking that it’s for “the greater good” (making the frum people who he hates – those dreaded “haredim” – look bad). A lot of the “child abuse” “activists” are not much better and use similar tactics.
There needs to be a committee formed to stop these people. It’s a massive false chilul Hashem and countering that should be taken as seriously as countering the blood libels, H”Y. On an individual level, these people have caused baseless pain to many, many people and not standing up is a failure to be mekayem the mitzvah midOraisa of lo saamod al dam reacha.
Dear Aliza
You are too altruistic. We live in a cynical world where the bottom line is about dollar signs. Expecting moral strength from the media is plain unrealistic. They want to sell newspapers and the more sensational the better. The post is a rag sheet. It’s news is aimed to appeal to the most base instincts within the human psyche. This is what they do. Stop crying a river and move on.
to #17
I strongly disagree, respectfully. Too much cynicism can lead to apathy. This is not for us. We do the Rebbe’s inyonim, one Jew at at time.
This is similar. If it is Emes, we bring it out.
People have been lied to, and it is a moral act to correct that. Especially since it comes to unzer.
You are totally correct that it is about dollar signs. However, that does not mean we give up. Aliza took the time to write the truth, and if it only affects one person, that person can make a difference. Emes is Emes.
It is time that other people help change the trend of using money, media and power, and more and more, say the truth. I for one think it will make a difference. Never let the kelipadik values of tref and sheker make you feel that its not possible to do anything.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
[info][add][mail][note]Margaret Mead (as if we needed to hear it from outside our own). I found it refreshing that Aliza Bas Menachem would write that and I think it was a valuable piece of clarity to say the least.
Thanks
Thanks for answering #17. It was a relief that I did not have to do it – and it feels good to know that readers are on my side.
You answered very well :)
I have one thing to add…
The Rebbe told us to shout when it hurts. My experience has been that my shouting might not make a difference – but my silence just might. In other words, without voicing opposition – you are actively giving positive feedback to evil doers.
Thanks again, Aliza
to Aliza Bas Menachem
this was journalism 101….the moshiach-dic way…..except that it was about a tragedy. Truth be, that she took that article apart, like it was a journalism class and was teaching……
could it be called
Value-based scrupulous reporting?
You did it, Aliza, thankyou….for representing Yidden and emes.
Thanks
Thanks for the positive feedback.
Seriously, how else would I know that I am not just writing into space?
I do have plans to send this article elsewhere. Even if people don’t act on it right away, at least they will be aware of (in your words) Journalism 101 – how papers like the Post use clichés, word association and formatting – to get their point across without using facts. I find it scary.
Thanks again, Aliza
Most important sentence I have read in years
The very first sentence of this article says it all: Don’t talk until you know. Don’t assume you know until you yourself speak to the party involved. And even then.. is it necessary to talk? We don’t have great expectations of the social responsibility of secular media or their feelings towards Jews. But if this vitally important lesson can be learned by us – as individuals, families, friends, communities, the whole Jewish world, then some meaning may come out of this horrific tragedy (not justification, but meaning).
Anomymous
I agree with the content of this piece, yet I find it deeply ironic that we are able to point out all the dishonesty of the secular media and display righteous indignation over this type of character assassination, when our community has just done the very same thing to Simcha Frischling! We took a Torah-based self-development workshop and invoked words like “cult” and “mind-control” to play effectively on people’s fears. In reality a sober, honest evaluation of the situation would never have lead to such ludicrous conclusions. At most there could have been reasonable intellectual critique of the program that would have opened up spirited discussion and debate about its merits or lack thereof. I hope the next time we see something like this in the secular media, we challenge ourselves to meet our own standards.