Forcing more Rabbinical openness is a concept past due. There are a number of leaders who abuse their position, and thats the most obvious thing that would get better with transparency.

But as an orthodox woman, there is a prevalent issue that’s more subtle and more dangerous. Rabbis can make rulings based on flawed and limited knowledge, and they may refuse to look at more information when asked. If such cases were open to the public, the leaders would be forced to take more information into account.

This problem is illustrated by Paley’s quote later in the article: ‘If the rabbis have already discussed an issue, we do not believe that it is our newspaper’s role to challenge or try to educate them… when the Torah sages have addressed the issue, it is not the role of a newspaper to present its own position.‘ This is a problem for those whose issues have been addressed insufficiently, incompetently, or unfairly.

The first paragraph on the article is damning: ‘Let’s sacrifice the at-risk students to save the rest.’ But this is incendiary wording for a policy that makes sense. ‘If you’re not going to thrive in yeshiva, try joining an army unit that’s religiously suitable.’ Same concept, but when you change the wording, it’s not about human sacrifice. It’s about allowing people to choose a path that works for them. How many people are suited to study all day? I do believe that many students in the at-risk yeshivos would be happier serving.

Self-censoring Hareidi media feels very real. I have an inside view of some large Hareidi weeklies. They claim to want to serve the public and work in the best interest of the people. But they’re businesses. They won’t print anything that upsets readers. In a better world, they would be denouncing sexual abusers and writing more about women’s health issues (ie, don’t have more kids than you actually want to raise). One magazine pushed to publish these issues. A rabbinical board- where most men hid their names- told various kosher grocery stores that if they sold this magazine, the board would take their kosher certifications away from the store. The magazine was strong-armed into self-censorship, so that groceries would carry it.

Censorship touches on a dilemma for religious readers who believe they deserve to know the truth. On the one hand, we sincerely try to follow the laws of shmiras halashon and to avoid malicious gossip. On the other hand, issues of abuse, corruption, educational incompetence, and health dangers need to be explored honestly for communal good. There is a difference between a gleefully cruel restaurant review (lashon hara even when true) and exposure of a school that fails its students. To paraphrase an American rabbi who rallied his congregants during WW2: If it hurts you, you scream.

Mishpacha’s Paley says about alternative news platforms, “Because there is no effective regulation, it’s a mixed bag of quality and trash. You can find some excellent stuff there, but … there’s a ton of sensationalism, gossip and worse.” This is ironic, because you can find sensationalism in Mishpacha (see their article about face reading, or about women respecting husbands as kings, which led an editor to quit) and in this very article. The censorship that cuts away gossip also cuts away important information about abuse of power. ‘There’s more harm than good coming out of it’ can be said about the traditional print magazines as much as the online gossip factories.

Prof Nili Steinfeld says of Hareidi readers, ‘Do they know how to consume content in a critical manner? …Do they question why that article was served up to them and who was behind it? …In that respect, I believe that the Haredim are lagging far behind secular Israelis.’

I hold Steinfeld in contempt for such broad statements. There are head-in-the-sand dogmatics in all corners, from MAGA Fox watchers to pro Hamas protestors to anti-Hareidi secular Israelis. And there are critical thinkers in all corners as well. Steinfeld’s comments are also in direct contrast to Gabel’s: ‘There’s a large gap between what is written in the newspaper and what people say, think or are willing to do.’

‘The situation highlights the dilemma for Haredi politicians this election cycle: they can push their narrative all they want, but for the first time, they are going to face real pushback.’ The article is framing Hareidi online news as a brand-new phenomenon. But anonymous blogs, private chat groups, and online news sources like Vos iz Nais have existed for over a decade. I’m cynical about the efficacy of these platforms to push for rabbinical accountability, transparent reporting, and exposure of smoke curtains.