Question about what the rabbi wrote about the interview with Yair Sheleg

Apparently, the Rabbi is of the opinion that one should judge only what has been said, and therefore if there were some comments from Ahad Ha'am to explain the issue of ethics, that is enough. And Amir is of the opinion that even if we heard one comment, it is interesting to hear whether there are more comments, and there is also the matter of ad hominem that throws light on how much empathetic thought should be invested in the matter. I am also of Amir's opinion and am interested in hearing your thoughts.

I did post this in the comments, but I didn't see your answer, only other people's responses, so I posted it here as a separate question - sorry if it seems like I wanted to harass, that wasn't my intention.

I wanted your answer. With all due respect to the responses of the other commenters there in the thread, although some of what they wrote seemed puzzling to me.

Why would anyone want to be interviewed knowing that the interviewer will treat the interviewee's words as if they were his own?

I'll say it again, I'm not asking here to rant, but because I'd love to hear what you have to say, and the talkbacks are in their proper place, they're less interesting to me.

What they answered there is sufficient for me.

Okay - this seems very puzzling to me. Why would a person agree to be interviewed knowing in advance that his words would probably be taken out of context and not even having the right to see the interview written up and corrected?

I can now understand more people who consistently refuse to be interviewed……….

And what they wrote in the comments is, with apologies, nonsense - the interview is *also* the interviewee's. The interviewee is doing the newspaper a favor by agreeing to be interviewed and there is a “give and take” here and he can certainly come up with demands and expect that no problem will come out of the interview with him.

According to what they wrote there in the “Ahad Ha'am” thread and the commenters who responded similarly, there is no reason for any sane person to agree to be interviewed

Really, no rabbi I know is interviewed by a newspaper, and the interview itself seems quite strange to me. I can still understand rabbis who answer by text message because that's the media today. But the phenomenon of rabbis and opinion leaders who have websites, Facebooks, and the like seems strange to me (even though here they can detail their teachings as they wish). It seems to me like attempts at advertising and gaining sympathy. I understand that it helps spread ideas that advertisers think are important, but it actually reminds me of Hasidism with a lot of public relations. Today, whoever presents themselves and knows how to market themselves (through the new medium) will take over the discourse. The content and truth of things are less important, and that's quite annoying to me. It's very intriguing and interesting and allows you to see different opinions, but at least in a newspaper if it tries to be objective, the issue of public relations is avoided.

When I write here, I too sometimes feel like part of the setting.

Ahad Ha'am, how is this any different from publishing books, teaching classes, and establishing yeshivas? The scent of the image of the Grail rises in my nose.

I'm really not sure it's that different. You'll agree with me that it's very different from a generation ago when they would publish a person's book after their death or in low circulation, etc. I think that one of the most difficult problems of this generation and the silence of the Torah stems from the mixing of religion and advertising, and this is one of the things that destroys any good part of the rabbis and great men of this generation. That everyone gets published and immediately has followers (including, in my opinion, on this site) and influence, and this is very far from the truth. (Of course, in academia and the civilian market, the problem is more serious, people have realized that if they are good marketers of themselves or their product, they are much more successful than creating a product or a true concept for the better). The problem is that it desecrates (perhaps inevitably) the sacred world.

And haven't there been famous rabbis in all generations? I don't understand the argument. Even in past generations there were books that were published early (Heshech, for example, and hundreds more) and rabbis who distributed answers to all corners of the world (Rashba, Rogzover, etc.). Everyone according to their own merits.
What do you mean everyone becomes famous and immediately has followers? It should be said that almost no one becomes famous and it takes a lot of time and effort to gather followers. And often even from the followers we hear the Rebbe (not like a urine test, but like tell me who your friends are).
If you claim that the desire for publicity causes people to say things that are not serious or corrupts them into strange opinions, then that is another matter (publicity as a sign) that we have already rambled on about here.