lohud. has further proven that journalism is dead in this country...

If you have not done so already, please check out this preamble which explains why I am writing this article. We cannot allow news outlets to get away with such flagrant, irresponsible writing.

Steve Lieberman, a veteran writer with the Journal News, having started there in 1984, published this article on August 5, 2017. The title of the article is Eruv: An invisible boundary that's raised a firestorm of debate with a long Rockland history. My goal is to extract excerpts from this article, breaking them down and pointing out all of the lies, misrepresentations, and outright irresponsible journalism demonstrated by Lieberman and lohud.com. However, I highly recommend reading Lieberman's full article before continuing, below.

"Feiner, now 43 and married with grandchildren, says the eruv — an unobtrusive perimeter attached to utility poles and fences that marks the public area in which Orthodox Jews may engage in activities otherwise prohibited outside the home on the Sabbath — created a sense of community."

Unobtrusive perimeter - This is stated (almost) as a definition rather than what it actually is, a biased opinion. Whether something, anything, is obtrusive or not is a personal opinion.

Created a sense of community- Yes, an exclusive community, for a specific population. Lieberman is not quoting Feiner here, which is either a grammatical error or once again, an act of sharing a biased opinion, rather than facts.

Feiner is then quoted as stating, "I didn't realize any resistance," she said. "I took for granted my religious freedom in Monsey with the eruv. What's going on today gives me pause and makes me thankful for what we have. I grew up with the freedom to not having to think about it." Feiner is absolutely entitled to her opinion but it is Lieberman's next sentence that baffles me- "She doesn't recall the eruvs causing the type of divisiveness that has erupted in three nearby New Jersey communities — Mahwah, Montvale and Upper Saddle River, where residents are fighting the expansion of the Rockland eruv."

• First of all, the plural of eruv is eruvin (which I am only calling attention to because this is 'supposed to be' a legitimate publication)
• Second, Lieberman does not include even a single reason as to why these NJ communities are fighting the expansion of the eruvin...not even one argument to demonstrate both sides of the debate. This leaves room for readers to draw an immediate conclusion that the fight relates to religion, which it does not at any level. The only folks making this claim are ill-informed, as well as agents of untrue propaganda, such as Rabbi Shmuley.

From a journalistic perspective, this article also horribly written with random statements dribbled throughout, in no rational order or explanation for their inclusion.

"Monsey's Orthodox community had been its nascent stage, not the community of diverse Jewish faiths of today"

Diverse? How is it conceivably possible that Lieberman didn't challenge Rabbi Tendler's, ridiculous assertion. While there are many different sects in Monsey, there is almost no diversity at all with respect to Jewish faiths. To that end, ultra-orthodox and others have dismissed reformed Jews as not being 'real' (Jews).

Wouldn't a responsible journalist challenge or at the very least, confirm assertions made by those they quote?

"The eruv means unity, with the concept being a unified domain like one big family, instead of laissez-faire," said Mordachai Tendler"

That all depends on your definition of unity. Unity among themselves, yes. Why wouldn't Lieberman challenge Tendler when he used this word? How can it possibly be justifiable?

"Mordachai Tendler said when the Hasidic Jewish population began to grow and become more influential, their leaders created another eruv, with different boundaries, about 18 years ago, which exists today."

Influential? INFLUENTIAL? How can Lieberman possibly not refute this word, looking no further than the Spring Valley, NY school board. Influential is a grave misrepresentation and Lieberman knows it.

"She said that the eruv doesn't draw people into communities, the availability of houses does. She noted young Jewish couples buying houses in Airmont, Chestnut Ridge and Pomona from families who had moved in decades ago."

Of all the statements in this article, this one pisses me off. How can any responsible journalist not add context and explain that this is factually untrue? Those who live in these communities are denied a secular education and a very limited view of the 'outside' world. It is quite possible that Feiner believes what she stated, based on her own experience...but the ridiculousness of this statement defies reason and logic.

The article also adds this quote from Feiner- "I wish there was no fear," she said. "People are buying homes because the houses are for sale and they are paying good money. We're not forcing people out of their homes. People have moved into communities without an eruv."

People are blockbusting, which is illegal. They are offering less money for houses, instilling fear into home owners that if they don't sell soon, their property value would plummet. They are flagrantly and deliberately forcing people out of their homes. There is a ton of data to support this, yet Lieberman includes none.

Referencing comments from a gentleman named Chaim Lazarus, the article continues - "He said the eruv issue is being blown out of proportion, adding the ervu is placed on poles along utility right-of-ways, not on private property."

Blown out of proportion? To make this statement and not challenge it by referencing any historical data is irresponsible journalism at every level. Further, the placement of eruvin on private property is not even remotely a major issue.

"He (Lazarus) said the controversy over the expanded eruv in neighboring northern Bergen County "basically tells people we don't want you here."

That is Lazarus' opinion and he's entitled to it. Did Lieberman seek out any information, opinions, data, or otherwise to prove/disprove this claim? Nope...not a chance.

Lieberman also cites Judah Lerer, another Monsey resident and businessman - "Lerer said arguments on both sides of the eruv debate in Bergen County have become ugly, with people stereotyping religious Jews and the religious Jews calling people anti-Semitic. He said such characterizations have ruined Ramapo and threaten Rockland."

No. And this is the part that disturbs me most. Why won't the media do their job and prove/disprove if concerns stem from anti-Semitism or not? If you haven't already, please read my previous article. With respect to the concerns I've mentioned, please share one example of how any of the concerns relate to any form of bigotry. It is the behavior of a group that is cause for concern. Their religion, skin color, beliefs, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with anything. However, in a really twisted way, this group (at least, in part) relies on anti-Semitism as a justification for their actions. These are not stereotypes, either. These concerns are based on the current and past actions of this exact group. If I see a chef, I don't presume he can cook Italian food. But if the chef is in the kitchen cooking Italian food when I'm observing him...well...that's not a stereotype.

Lieberman's irresponsible reporting will further this group's ability to claim the concerns of other citizens stems from anti-Semitism. That would make his article more propaganda than anything else. It is irresponsible and inexcusable.