After a slew of anti-Semitic incidents received by a number of journalists, the Republican Jewish Coalition finally took action to address the issue. However, they missed a large point of the necessary message: the overwhelming majority of incidents come from Trump supporters and have been directed at journalists who have made any criticism of the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Callum Borchers writes in the Washington Post:
The Republican Jewish Coalition stood up for journalists on Tuesday. So why are some of those journalists so unhappy?
Here's the relevant portion of the RJC's statement:
We abhor any abuse of journalists, commentators and writers, whether it be from Sanders, Clinton or Trump supporters. There is no room for any of this in any campaign. Journalists, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity should be free to do their jobs without suffering abuses, anti-Semitic or otherwise.
Seems pretty strong and straightforward on its face. But let's review some of the notable, recent incidents of abuse that the RJC appears to be referencing.
Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of the New York Times, received a stream of vile responses last week when he tweeted a link to a Washington Post columncriticizing Donald Trump. Weisman retweeted some of the messages.
Also last week, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol was labeled a "renegade Jew" by Breitbart News for his role in the Never Trump movement.
And last month, freelance writer Julia Ioffe got a barrage of anti-Semitic hate mail on Twitter after Trump's wife, Melania, criticized Ioffe's GQ profile of the would-be first lady. Like Weisman, Ioffe drew attention to her harassment by retweeting some of the messages.
The common denominator here is Trump supporters. That's not to say backers of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders never step into this sewer, but journalists expressing their dissatisfaction with the RJC seem to feel members of Team Trump are the main culprits. They're annoyed that the RJC didn't single out the presumptive presidential nominee from its own party but rather included him — last — on a list of all three active, major-party candidates, as if the offenders are spread evenly among the campaigns.
To read the entire story, click here.