I just went back to read the article.
"Smear" = a false accusation intended to damage someone's reputation. What part do you think was false?
The general topic of voting does seem relevant to the article because near the beginning they say "Warned about the problems over the years, city and state officials have avoided taking action, bowing to the influence of Hasidic leaders who push their followers to vote as a bloc and have made safeguarding the schools their top political priority."
So it make sense that they'd provide evidence that leaders are influencing voters in unusual ways, given that they claim that this explains the lack of government oversight until now.
I already provided a few examples upthread of ways they either lied or deliberately misframed things devoid of context.
It's common practice for communities to have political committees that suggest candidates to vote for. I've heard about numerous instances on liberal shows such as This American Life describing how black communities create sample ballots that people take into the polls and copy it exactly when they vote. Candidates meet with these groups when they are campaigning and make all sorts of promises to do things in the interests of these groups. None of this is viewed as problematic. It is (rightly) called good community organizing. It's done in Brooklyn by other groups ALL THE TIME. But this behavior is only described as some kind of nefarious political quid pro quo scheme when Jews do it.
Consider this choice of phrase in the opening paragraphs:
"they drill students relentlessly,
sometimes brutally, during hours of religious lessons conducted in Yiddish"
Or:
"Parents there said administrators coached them on applying for vouchers and other programs."
So maybe low-income PSs should learn to coach their parents too, or just imply that that is sinister Jew behavior.
They include funding for daycare for the end of day schooling, as well as funding for the older students, again as if it is somehow nefarious and not simply receiving grants exactly as they are intended. The former most definitely not requiring any kind of educational standards whatsoever.
Even if the "investigative report" part of the article is accurate, and that's a big if, they add in so much garbage and easily refutable claims so as to show the entire piece for the smear it is.
