Friday, March 23rd | 7 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

June 24, 2016 4:32 am

What the Torah Tells Us About the Media’s Role in Vetting Clinton and Trump

avatar by Pini Dunner

Email a copy of "What the Torah Tells Us About the Media’s Role in Vetting Clinton and Trump" to a friend
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton denounced the Tel Aviv terrorist attack. Photo: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Photos: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

“Donald Trump’s free ride on your television screen is coming to an end,” began an article in the Los Angeles Times last week. The article reports that the ubiquitous appearances by Trump on TV since he declared his candidacy have been heavily curtailed in recent weeks, and from now on whenever he is interviewed, he will be forced to defend his more outlandish statements. Apparently, it finally dawned on the networks that allowing the presumptive Republican candidate unfettered freedom to say whatever he wanted for almost a year did not have the expected effect of making him less attractive to the electorate, and may in fact have boosted his popularity, resulting in the remarkable phenomenon of his nomination.

As hard as it may be to believe, just a year ago Trump’s candidacy was not taken seriously by the media; in my opinion, most news professionals believed that if they allowed him to freely express his outrageous opinions, he would inevitably ruin his own chances of electoral success. And so he was given the freedom to say whatever he wanted, as much as he wanted. It goes without saying that the networks also had their eye on ratings, which increased whenever Trump was on TV. It seemed like a win-win. Trump would self-destruct while ratings went up. But as the months rolled by, it should have become obvious to all that the strategy wasn’t working.

Ironically, the overexposure for Trump also meant that Hillary Clinton was given a far easier ride than she might have expected during a normal primary election season. While there were attacks against her from within her own party, her media exposure was limited, and the media scrutiny was tame. So the electorate is now left with two presumptive candidates — both of whom do not have the greatest record of keeping their promises, nor with the kind of leadership experience that should be a prerequisite for the job — as the only two choices for what is arguably the most important political position on the planet.

It would be easy to use all this as an excuse to go into an anti-media rant, or to start railing against a political system that has allowed such a farce to happen. But let’s face it – neither of these reactions is appropriate. The freedom of the press is without any doubt one of our most precious freedoms, however flawed the media may be. Meanwhile, the political system in the United States has over the past almost 250 years delivered some of the greatest leaders of modern times. To focus purely on the failures of the media and our political system rather misses the point.

This week’s Torah portion records the story of Eldad and Meidad, two nominees for the newly formed council of elders (later on known as the Sanhedrin). For some reason they failed to attend the inaugural closed session of the council, instead opting to remain among the people, where, as a result of their newly acquired status as prophets, they began to prophesize, revealing information that they were not meant to disclose. Moshe and his inner circle were informed of the breach, and the first to react was Moses’ primary disciple, Joshua. Having no idea that Eldad and Meidad were bona-fide prophets, he proposed a draconian reaction: וַיֹאמַר אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶה כְלָאֵם – “He said, my master, Moses, kela’eim!”

The medieval commentator, Rashi, offers two explanations for the rather obscure Hebrew word “kela’eim.” The most obvious explanation is that “kela’eim” is derived from the word “keleh,” which means prison, and Joshua was proposing that the two renegades be incarcerated. But Rashi relegates this interpretation to second place. Instead, he posits a rather more convoluted explanation as his first choice. What Joshua meant by “kela’eim,” says Rashi, was for Moses to impose real leadership responsibilities on Eldad and Meidad, which would ultimately “imprison” them one way or another. Moses, who knew that these two mavericks were actually genuine, was unconcerned, and reassured Joshua there was nothing to worry about – and, as he said, “If only all of God’s nation were prophets!”

Notwithstanding the end of the story, we still need to understand why Rashi preferred his more elaborate interpretation of Joshua’s proposal. I would suggest that he was concerned that Eldad’s and Meidad’s failure to join the inaugural council meeting was a protest against the established leadership. That being the case, putting them in jail would be utterly pointless, as it would simply turn them into political prisoner celebrities, and possibly lead to a much more dangerous popular revolution against Moses. Instead, Joshua suggested that Moses should appoint them to real leadership roles. As leaders with real responsibilities, either their opposition would melt away, or they would be exposed as incompetents.

Opposition politicians and candidates standing for election are not subject to the realities of being in power, nor faced with the complex situations that leaders contend with at every turn. They can afford to speak in utopian terms and make unrealistic promises without the negative consequences that would follow if they had to do what they promised. In a democratic system we are lucky that we do not to have to appoint people to positions of power to find out whether or not they are capable leaders. Instead we can subject them to public scrutiny through the media long before they climb into the driver’s seat.

In this election year, we are faced with a choice between two candidates who many believe are not suited to the presidency, although one of them will certainly be elected. On that basis we must follow Joshua’s advice of “kela’eim.” We must make sure to put them both through the toughest scrutiny process of any election in modern history, so that whoever the winner is will have been tested and thoroughly prepared for the job long before they move into the White House. The future of the free world literally depends on it.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • John

    Mr. Dunner should consider that the media’s treatment of Donald Trump was for the purpose of getting him the Republican nomination because he was the Republican against whom their favorite, Hillary Clinton, had the best chances. Trump was the media’s choice for Republican nominee, so they did everything they could to help him win, all the while poking fun at him to lay the groundwork for what will happen once he is formally nominated.

    The problem now is that neither Trump nor Clinton, nor what’s his name form the Libertarian Party, has any business being elected president. Americans have to find an alternative and figure out how to defeat the media and the political class.

  • Jonah

    Their is no true journalism but what comes from algemeiner and others of its like kind. All you get is spun scrutiny. Obama did not have a proven record for anything other than being rebel he has doubled the national debt and spent more money than all the previous presidents. Scrutiny is not what you will find amoungst American left wing journalists because they throw out the wheat and print the chaff. Our left wing journalists are respocible for electing the worst president since the beginning of time and you expect us to believe the same slop for a second time ….once bitten twice shy as the Stones say. He has bankrupted our country promoting Islam all the while surreptitiously financing and arming them. Trump does not need to be scrutinized the writer of this article should be scrutinized for his motives in writing it. Israel is the enemy of this president and he has turned against Israel and intends to vote against them at the ,U.N…forget about Trump scrutinize that.

  • I. Svartsman

    In his otherwise excellent article, the author displays an appalling lack of understanding of the nature of the today’s so-called “free” media in America. In his version of reality, the mainstream media is or can be objective and effective in questioning the candidates’ qualifications for the Presidency. “We must make sure to put them both through the toughest scrutiny process …” The author has apparently found a way to force the proverbial leopard to change his spots. How did that work out in the previous two elections with respect to the current President or with the fawning “softball” questioning of the current Democratic candidate on those rare occasions when she actually makes herself available? With that kind of baggage, any Republican candidate would have been hounded by the media out of running long time ago.

  • Lia

    The LSM (Lame Stream Media) will not be tough on Mrs Clinton.