The most interesting part of my interaction with Benyamin Cohen of Jewsweek.com came after our interview. We exchanged a contentious series of emails on Sunday, July 11, 2004.
Only after Benyamin decided to take this public (he emailed all Jewish newspaper editors and told them to not speak to me), did I decide to take this dispute public.
First, some background.
One. I've read Jewsweek.com on and off since it launched in 2001. I may go a couple of months without reading it or I may check it every week. I think it has some good articles and is a positive contribution to Jewish journalism, the Jewish people, and Judaism.
Two. I've found that a large number of people I interview suffer from the misapprehension that I seek their good graces, approval and friendship. I am not. I am seeking to do my job. Any friendships I develop while working on something will not come at the expense of my project.
In general, I've found that a large number of people, within or without the world of writing, feel obliged to tell me, without my soliciting their opinion, what I should do with my writing. When this comes from people who are more accomplished than me, I usually welcome the advice. Otherwise, I usually don't.
An example. Hollywood producer Jeff Wald.
This brings up to Benyamin Cohen. Who do you think has been the most difficult person for me to talk to in Jewish journalism? Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week? Rob Eshman, the editor of the Jewish Journal? Nope. Benyamin Cohen. He's a busy man. Once we had to reschedule an interview because he was overwhelmed with other obligations. Another time, we had to reschedule because I forgot to call when I said I would.
Benyamin and I did our interview Friday morning. Saturday night I sent him a transcript.
I am under no journalistic obligation to give Ben or anyone a transcript of our interview. Not only is this not journalistic practice, it is the opposite of journalistic practice. Occasionally, to get an interview, I will promise a subject that he can see and improve any quotes I use from him. I do this only when I have to and I did not give any such assurance to Ben before our interview. Instead, before saying goodbye, I said I'd send him a transcript before I published it.
I did that. He replied with this document of changes.
Almost everyone I interview welcomes the opportunity to amend things they've said. I usually go along with their changes, but not always. In fact, I can't think of anybody where I've accepted every change he's requested. Until Benyamin Cohen, everybody I've interviewed has understood that it is up to me in the final analysis to accept or reject his requested changes.
I started to run into problem with Ben before 8 a.m. Sunday, July 11. I asked him for contact info for his friend Vincent Coppola. He replied, "Why?"
I replied:
Because I want to ask him out on a date.
Why? Obviously because I want to interview him for my book on Jewish journalism.
Ben replied: "yeah ... but he's not a Jewish journalist. And he only worked at a Jewish paper for a year."
I replied:
Ben, I don't tell you how to run Jewsweek. Don't tell me who I should or should not interview for my book.
I get this all the time and I'm sick of it. If you don't want to give me his email, why don't you email him and ask if he'd be willing to talk to me. He could be a black lesbian Buddhist for all I care, so long as he has worked in journalism on jewish topics. That he is not Jewish makes him all the more interesting to me, sheesh, why do I have to explain something so elementary.
Ben replied:
Luke, Relax, man. I just wasn't sure you if you knew that he wasn't Jewish. that's all. truth be told, in my opinion, he knows more about Jewish journalism than most Jews do. his email address is ------. Just tell him you interviewed me and I gave you his name.
Ben sent me about a dozen more emails when I did not go along with every one of his requested changes to his transcript. I agreed to most of them but I wouldn't change the word "sucks" to "stinks."
Ben had said on Friday: "My philosophy on Jewish journalism is that most Jewish journalism sucks."
I emailed Ben that I preferred "sucks." It was more pungent.
He replied: "I would prefer it to the other way please."
I replied: "Nope."
He replied: "huh?"
I replied: "I am not making the change you requested."
He replied: "Luke, I don't think that's appropriate. I'm asking you again to make that change. If you do not, I will have to ask you to delete my interview completely."
I replied:
When was the last time you sent a subject a transcript of an interview before you published their quotes? That is a rare privilege that I extended to you. It does not mean that I am going to accept every single change you wanted. I went along with 90% of what you requested.
That is the way I've always done it. People frequently want to soften the pungent things they say. Sometimes I accept their requests and sometimes I do not. It is my choice as publisher as it is your choice when you publish.
You said the word "sucks." I prefer it to "stinks." That word and the interview stands, whether you like it or not. You can ask all you want. It is staying up. If there are other changes you want, I will consider them.
Because we are going to fight over this matter, does not mean that I am not happy to help you in any way I can now or in the future. But I am not always going to do what you ask. I am not your servant.
This is elementary journalism. It is not the right of an interview subject to demand changes to words he said on the record in an interview. Before we did the interview, I did not say, "I guarantee you that you can make all the changes to the transcript of this interview before it sees print and that you can completely shape whatever coverage I give to you in my writing" or any such thing. That is absurd. Why on earth would you think I'd give you such a thing? Do you give that to people you write about? Do you always let your subjects vet their words before they appear in your publication?
This is an interesting journalism discussion. I'd be curious what your friends in the field feel on this matter, if you cared to discuss it with them.
I appreciated your forthright interview. I like your publication and will be glad to help you where I can. I appreciated your referral to Vincent. We will speak later today.
That I appreciate your help does not mean I will accede to your every request. Why would you expect that? Do people always do what you ask?
He replied:
Before I agreed to the interview with you, I asked Andrew Silow-Caroll if he thought it was a good idea. he said it's fine since Luke will let you read the transcript and change things if you want.
I guess I was under that false impression.
As you know, friday morning was not the best time for me to conduct an interview -- my computer had crashed, my car wouldn't start, and my air conditioning was broken. I raraely, if ever, use words lie "suck" (ask my friends, it's not in my character).
You caught me at an extremely perturbed time and I think now you're taking advantage of it.
Look, it's your site and you can post whatever you want. I just think that ...
a) you're doing a terrible disservice to your readers by showing them a Benyamin Cohen that doesn't really exist
b) as such, you're losing credibility in my eyes
If the wording doesn't change, I will not be able to help you any further with any project you may be working on and I will dissuade my colleagues from helping either.
I replied:
I give you complete freedom to share this dispute with anyone. I'd be curious for the reactions of disinterested parties.
I admire your work and from what I know of it, I admire the life you lead. You're a good guy.
That said, with every good quality comes a mirrored bad quality. I don't think we're really fighting over the word "sucks." Along with your courage and independence and vision and self-made thing comes this unpleasant bullying and control-freak quality. If I am the first person to point this out to you, then disregard it. If I am not, then maybe it is something for you to think about.
I am open to being wrong about this and changing the word down the line if people I respect such as Andy tell me to, but I really think this is all about you needing to have 100% control over this interview, and your needing to boss others around.
That you would throw a fit over this one word (want your interview taken down if you are not accommodated, you will do other things to discourage people from talking to me etc) reveals something very disturbing about you. But ask your wife or people you respect. Let us leave our egos out of this dispute and, if you want, get feedback from others.
I'd be happy to publish an open letter from you to readers of your interview (at the bottom of your interview). You can say you did the interview under false assumptions, that the image of you presented in the interview is false, you don't use the word sucks normally, and that you discourage anybody else in the field from talking to me because I am...whatever you want to say. I won't edit it one word.
He replied:
Calling me a control freak is way out of line. You don't know me and you've never met me. We've only spoke for 30 minutes. To pass such psychological judgments is irresponsible and rude on your part.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can reach an amicable conclusion about this. I will now be forced to tell others not to talk with you -- including Vince later today.
I am the moderator of the AJPA listserv and I will be sending out an e-mail to all the editors later today to tell them of my unprofessional and discourteous experience with you.
I replied: "Go for it."
He replied: "FYI, I have told Vince not to speak with you. As well, I have sent out an e-mail to all the Jewish newspaper editors advising them not to talk with you."
I replied: " May I have a copy of the letter you sent out about me?"
He replied: "Nope."
I replied: "You're such a brave man."
He replied: "C'mon... why would I give you that kind of professional courtesy when you treat me the way you did?"
And that's where we left it.
RJA writes: Poor Benyamin; he assumed that Luke, aka Levi Abraham, was a journalistic push-over. He figured, how tough can an interview be with a man (a convert no less) who spent six years interviewing porn sluts about Kierkegaard and bukakke. Mistake number one. Then he figures that using bully-boy tactics will get the blog world to turn against Luke. That was mistake number 2. Little does Bennie know but that Luke is the master of the blogosphere; Luke eats guys like Bennie for breakfast. There is no way for Bennie to come out of this looking other than a neb. As they say in the hood: this is Luke's playground.
