Money took the place of Avodeh Zorah this might be a good example....

Come on, Rafi, what does one have to do with the other? They made an agreement to run an ad, which happens to feature RYH. Then a news story starts getting nasty comments so they pull the story. Where is the discrepancy?

the news story did not happen to get nasty comments. the news story itself blasted him.
When an ad runs on this blog that I do not approve of, I immediately filter it out. Granted I am making pennies on the ads running here and YW is probably making decent money, so maybe it is a more difficult decision for them, but I would think that if you consider Rabbi Horowitz to be evil and causing kids to go off the derech so much so that you run a story claiming that, I would think, and it is only my opinion, that you would not run an ad promoting that same person.

Nevertheless, I think it is honorable of YWN that he honored his advertisement agreement, even though he may disagree with RYH's outlook.

Dear Reb Rafi,

I agree with the previous commenter: It is honorable that YWN honored its advertising agreement.

I am also under the impression that YWN has admitted that it was a mistake to "run" the letter which was written against RYH.
Admitting one's mistake is EVEN more admirable - and that's the bottom line.

(Finally, YWN has consistently stated that it does not endorse this or any letter which it receives from individuals and then publicizes, and is just seeking to provide a forum for comments - sometimes choosing Not to censor them - and sometimes deciding - even afterwards that a particular letter is better off not run.)

As I stated above,
YWN's admission of its mistake is Most admirable -
as is honoring its commitment.

From your longstanding admirer
(even if you can't remember me)
- Mordechai E.

Mordechai E and anonymous commenters - I understand and see your point of view. maybe. I see it a bit differently.

When YW put up the post, they did not just see suddenly that Rabbi Horowitz was bad and they needed to condemn him. They must have already not liked him or what he does. When that letter was printed, they republished it, because it expressed what they felt.
If not, they could have printed the letter and then said why they disagree.

ok. so they dont like Rabbi Horowitz and they do not agree with his work. Fine, that is their right.
Then they take his (or whoever arranged it) advertising money and run his ads supporting his work, even though they disagree with it.
Then they run the post blasting him, but they still keep his ad running, because he paid for his ad after all.

Then the comments get nasty and for whatever reason they remove the post. And they still keep his ad running.

I would note that they did not explain why they removed the post. Did some rabbonim tell them they have to? did they feel bad about how nasty it was getting? did they disagree with the content?
At no point did the YW editor say that the commenters were wrong and spewing hate and lashon ha'ra (if that is what he felt). he simply removed the post - I suspect because of pressure exerted on him from either people or rabbonim (or both).

So it seems like they completely disagree with Rabbi Horowitz's work, but they take his ad money.

Another example of this is some people have pointed out that they have run many posts condemning sheitel stores that have pictures of women with wigs in the windows and women with tilted heads and the like, but they have always continued to run ads for the sheitel stores that have the same pictures, and possibly even more provocative than whatever was displayed in those windows.

if it is bad, they should refuse the ads from these people. If they are ok, they should not be running posts condemning them.

Reb Rafi,

Not everything that is reported by the YWN editor is supported by him. Just because he felt it was news to report on the letter that a RY issued against a Shaitel store, doesn't mean that he feels that such displays are provocative. Or even if he feels that they are provocative to some, he still might follow a "live and let live" attitude. Just because he might privately believe that RYH has crossed some lines, he still might support the general gist of his work. And again, he needn't cancel an advertisement just because. Also, maybe he is a strong supporter of RDG. :-)

RDG?

Reb Rafi,

In the picture you encircled in red on the post, there are two personages: RYH and RDG. :-)

Reb Rafi,

You said: "Then the comments get nasty and for whatever reason they remove the post."

One thing you can be sure of: They didn't remove the post because the comments were getting nasty - because they screen all comments and only allow what they want to get through.

still the same - ahhhh

same anon take 4 (yeah I know it is the same person) - good point. even more suggests to me what I was thinking

"Another example of this is some people have pointed out that they have run many posts condemning sheitel stores that have pictures of women with wigs in the windows and women with tilted heads and the like, but they have always continued to run ads for the sheitel stores that have the same pictures, and possibly even more provocative than whatever was displayed in those windows."

Just a quick point. The sheitel ads that ran on YWN were not as racy as the ones in the storefront. Also, no one is forcing you to access the YWN website, but the shaitel display was sort of "in your face" to the pedestrians of a famous Brooklyn yeshiva. I don't think anyone would have complained (or at least been given an ear) if the store had been a block away.

This comment has been removed by the author.

For what its worth, the letter, Rabbi Horowitz's response to it and many comments (mostly) for and against Rabbi Horowitz are published on his website: http://www.rabbihorowitz.com/PYes/ArticleDetails.cfm?Book_ID=985&ThisGroup_ID=271&ID=Newest&Type=Article