“For those who expected an independent news vehicle for everything that involves kosher, that certainly did not fit the mission of Kosher Today. Our editorial view was always and continues to be to support the industry, including our exhibitors at Kosherfest, and to protect the supply of kosher foods. … If any reader is looking for a ‘balanced’ and multi-dimensional view of kosher, it will not be Kosher Today. . . . Interestingly enough, I cannot recall the last time we received a letter of complaint from an industry representative, which would seem to indicate that as far as the industry is concerned, we have been true to our mission.”

Listening to Rabbi Allen talk, it was clear that he was “suggesting” and “saying,” and giving both points of view of the story – yes he’s got his opinion and he’s not impartial (who is?) but I don’t think he was “claiming.”

The statement written above in the Kosher Today report:

“There is no evidence of any boycott of Agri products whatsoever, they say.”

is a claim. It’s also not true.

Look, I’ve got no dog in this fight – I have an ethical standard that I wouldn’t eat food prepared in such a way and under such circumstances that I myself wouldn’t do it. I spent time in Postville and saw first hand the circumstances under which the meat was produced. It’s crappy work by any stretch of the imagination. Working with slippery, viscous animal parts and sharp knives and motorized saws is certainly not for the faint of heart. I myself have had a number of farm/forest related accidents, nearly losing a finger (tough for a guitarist), breaking my back in 1988, opening up my knee and then there are the big ones:) I’m simply pointing out that the spinmeisters are busy on both sides of the fence, not just Rubashkins. Someone has to be an honest broker in this thing.

On an unrelated note(??)I too laughed when I read the old man Rubashkin’s comments as well as those of the passerbyes – they’re obviously in some sort of denial – (well it looks like ole’ Ben Harris got his story after all.) Look, I too am troubled by many of these allegations. But by the same token, they have fueled an entire “kaddish industry” of conspiracy seekers (e.g. Agri staged the raid with ICE to beat the union????). I don’t expect objectivity from Lubicom – they Agri’s spokespersons. I thought I might find more objectivity here. Perhaps I was mistaken. My apologies.

It is hurtful and I think incorrect for you to call the report on Rabbi Allen’s experiences and observations a “puff piece.” However, Aaron Rubashkin coming out yesterday saying “it’s all lies?” I’m not suggesting that Agriprocessors is as evil as the media portrays (I’m not suggesting its not either). But I will “claim” that that statement is a puff – of hot air.

BTW – Leah, from a writing POV why does the word “interesting” come to mind. Ordinarily when an editor takes a position arguably at odds with those who sign his paycheck in the name of fairness and balance, words like “courageous” or “heroic” are usually employed.
Could it have to do with subtle (or nor too subtle) bias by the wordsmith who while crafting the article understands that s/he is shaping the public debate as well?
Stated another way – The puff piece on Rabbi Allen to the rescue uses the phrase “Rabbi Allen “said” (7 times), Rabbi Allen “commented” (twice), Rabbi Allen “described” “quoted” “suggested”. Yet Lubinsky “claimed”?

From the number of “agriposts” lately (running about 50%) pretty soon Jcarrot will be the round the clock source for Postville news perhaps warranting a new by-line – “All Agriprocessors – All the time”

“One of the most interesting articles I’ve read since the raid is writer Ben Harris’ account of his personal interactions with Sholom Rabushkin, as noted on The JTA’s blog, The Telegraph”

Leah, we must be living in interesting times. The Harris piece could have been a plot from “Seinfeld” – it essentially said nothing. However a few tidbits were indeed “interesting” as you say. Here are a few juicy nuggets:

“Yes, I lied, hoping to convince him of my piety, and thus my trustworthiness.”
“Reporters are in no way bound by an after-the-fact request to keep things off the record. Still, I figured, it was worth keeping quiet if silence would get me a tour of the plant and a potentially more insightful interview later on.”

So perhaps a better name than “Sholom & Me” (“Roger & Me” was at least informative and entertaining) might have been “An account of my ethical lapses in search of a story about alleged ethical lapses.”

To paraphrase Alix “This is absolutely disheartening, but I can’t say I am surprised. I found myself actually describing myself as “anti-journalism” to a friend recently.”

Interesting.