The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez, Mel Gibson and our fickle moral appraisals

Juan_williamsIt’s hard to imagine three guys who are more different than Juan Williams, Mel Gibson and Rick Sanchez. You’d never expect to see them in the same buddy comedy (although maybe Johnny Knoxville could somehow work them all into “Jackass 4D”), yet they all have something in common: Their nutty remarks got them fired from cushy jobs.

The threesome has pretty much boxed the compass when it comes to ethnic, sexist and religious slurs of every shape and description. Williams, a respected African American author, was ousted from his job as an NPR commentator after admitting on Fox News that he got nervous  when he saw people “in Muslim garb” on a plane. Sanchez, a Cuban American who once won an Emmy, got the boot from CNN after he told a Sirius/XM radio host that Jon Stewart was a bigot and suggested  that Jews, far from being a persecuted minority, actually controlled the national media.

And oh, yes, Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic, got canned from a comeback role in “The Hangover 2” last week after his costars apparently refused to work with him, still upset over a series of ugly racist and misogynist rants  Gibson allegedly had made over the phone this summer to his ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva.

The public reaction to these three events has been amazingly inconsistent. Many people have defended Williams — and he got a new job at Fox — while happily pouncing on Gibson and Sanchez. Why?

Sanchez, it should be noted, was guilty of ethnic stereotyping when he implied that Jews dominate the media — but what he said was only in the realm of suggestion. Williams, by saying it made him nervous to be on a plane with people who are “identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims,” was making his prejudice plain. If Williams had said he was nervous being around people who were “identifying themselves first and foremost as Orthodox Jews,” would he still be viewed as a victim? Or would he be condemned as a bigot?

One subtext here is that it is far more acceptable in today’s polite society to harbor prejudice against Muslims than Jews.

UPI’s venerable White House correspondent Helen Thomas found this out this summer when she got the ax for saying that Jews “should get the hell out of Palestine,” arguing, somewhat incoherently, that they should go back to Poland, Germany or America.

Yet contrast that with what happened to Oliver Stone, who in July gave an outlandish interview to the Times of London saying that the Holocaust had been blown out of proportion because of “the Jewish domination of the media.”

Instead of being fired, as Sanchez and Thomas were, Stone hardly paid a price at all. After a quick apology, he was almost instantly given a free pass to proceed with his career, so that by September, when he was out promoting his new film, “Wall Street 2,” hardly anyone bothered to confront him, much less complain about his views.

It would almost persuade you that Hollywood operates under an entirely different (and far more lax) set of moral standards from the national media.

Gibson was forgiven for his infamous series of anti-Semitic epithets in the wake of a 2006 drunk-driving arrest. Even one of his most outspoken critics, über-agent Ari Emanuel, who had initially argued that Gibson be treated as a pariah, ended up bringing Gibson in as an agency client several years later.

Yet Gibson was finally shunned by Emanuel, along with the rest of Hollywood, after his reportedly inflammatory telephone conversations surfaced this summer, notably where he repeatedly used the N-word, telling his ex-girlfriend that because of the way she dressed, it would be her fault if she were “raped by a pack of [black men.]”

For a brief moment, it looked as if Gibson might regain a small shred of respectability with the “Hangover 2” job offer, but that was nipped in the bud by unhappy fellow cast members. However, to give you a sense of just how wildly contradictory everyone’s value judgments are, it’s worth remembering that Gibson was essentially taking the place of Mike Tyson, who played a similar comic stunt-cast role in the first movie. No one raised a peep about the casting of Tyson, even though he actually served three years in prison for raping a former Miss Black Rhode Island.

So why do we accept Tyson but not Gibson, give Stone a pass but condemn Sanchez? I’d be lying if I said I entirely understood the logic of why one guy got off easy while another ended up in media jail.

In Hollywood, as in the larger world, people are notoriously fickle when it comes to moral appraisals. That is probably why many of the same people who eagerly denounced Elia Kazan were happy to give an Oscar to Roman Polanski. It’s more likely that Gibson is in the deepest rung of Hollywood purgatory because his vitriol has revealed the private person to be completely at odds with the public persona.

Gibson was once a respected actor and director, having not only helped anchor the hugely successful “Lethal Weapon” franchise but having won an Oscar for best director for “Braveheart.” To see him today as an angry crank repels us, since it represents a huge gap between our past perception and current reality.

Williams is still seen by many as a mild-mannered chronicler of the civil rights movement, not a certified crackpot like Gibson. Let’s see how that image holds up after a few months in the same foxhole as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. If there is one thing to learn from all these flaps, it’s that the kind of opinion that causes a furor often has more to do with who said it — and how we feel about them — than the actual remarks themselves.

But I’m betting that we’ll have even more controversies in the future, since in today’s media, especially on cable TV and on the Internet, the value of intemperate language has never been higher. We’ve become a culture where reticence is no longer a virtue. Maybe I’m way too old school, but for me, being offensive is still a vice.

Photo: Former NPR commentator Juan Williams appearing on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" program.

Credit: Richard Drew/ Associated Press

 
Comments () | Archives (28)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Journalists are not supposed to say things that would make people question their neutrality. How can you "analyze" the news if a group of people or a religion or a race makes you nervous? Even if true, you don't let that color your writing, and you certainly never make a statement like that on the air. Williams was warned about other incidents.

A bunch of politically correct nitwits are ruining this country. Juan Williams is right, Muslims on a plane make lots of people nervous. Mel Gibson? I think 75% of what he said to that gold digging leech are pretty balls on accurate. Rich Sanchez talking about Jews controlling the media is worthy of a discussion.

When you kill unpopular speech you're paving the way for censorship. No where in the First Amendment are certain subjects listed as taboo based on race, religion or who you sleep with. A racist boob has a right to be a racist boob. You don't have a right to never be offended by said boob.

"Even one of his most outspoken critics, über-agent Ari Emanuel, who had initially argued that Gibson be treated as a pariah, ended up bringing Gibson in as an agency client several years later."
Ari Emanuel did not bring Mel Gibson in as a client.
William Morris and Endeavor merged. Mel's agent Ed Limato worked at the agency that merged with Ari's agency ...that's how they came to be at the same agency. I'm sure Ari most likely remained cold and unforgiving the entire time and then pounced at the first opportunity to fire Mel.

I think much of the flap about Juan Williams firing is the perceived conduct of NPR in only firing people who had the "wrong" opinion about something. If you are a regular listener to NPR, opinions are given frequently, but they tend to be on the left, so they are acceptable.

As was stated on "The View", certainly not considered a voice for the right, Patricia Heaton stated that he (williams)certainly wouldn't have been fired if said that he was nervous at a Tea Party Rally, or when talking to a catholic priest.

Nina Tottenberg who famously wished Aids on a Republican senator and his grandchild is certainly still employed.

Maybe Juan Should have said he was "troubled" by...... isn't that a PC way of giving an opinion.

NPR's bone chilling cynicism to use phony Muslim sympathy to terminate Mr. Williams for his views on the Middle East is breathtaking - and the idea the the media "elite" bought NPR's whole enchilada - hook line and sinker - makes us question their competency.
EO of NPR Vivian Schille today wrote, "the ultimate decision (to fire Juan Williams) was the right one. Reiterating a statement she released last Friday, she called Williams' comments "the latest in a series of deeply troubling incidents over several years," and said that he had been repeatedly asked to "avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings...after this latest incident, we felt compelled to act."

Just what were those "deeply troubling incidents" on "controversial subjects" Did anybody bother to ask NPR - of course not - well then we decided to look into the matter ourselves Read below and you will certainly see what Ms. Schille was talking about.
Several years ago Juan Williams confronted William Kristol on Fox TV "You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East."
http://www.ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=1&Itemid=125

You overlook a glaring similarity, Patrick. The three of them are, to put it mildly, STUPID. I might also note that the First Amendment some of you so reverently cite dosn't necessarily protect stupidity, and a pesky thing called "contract" tends to trump it as well.

NPR disgracefully submitted to arm-twisting by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Considering the notorious history of Muslims keeping blacks as slaves (to this very day in North Africa), it is the depth of hypocrisy that Islamo-supremacists of CAIR (unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation) would call an honorable African American a "bigot." Shame, shame, shame.

Nothstanding Patrick's illogical (tu quoque) reasoning, those cited anti-Semitic media debacles do not speak to Juan Williams' media matyrdom to NPR's candorphobia.

Infamous media smears against Jewish people are unadulterated racism. Remind readers again, what "race" are Muslims? The implicit admission (that there is no bigotry inherent in criticizing followers of Islam) rings louder and clearer all the time.

NPR can't really rationally explain why Juan Williams should not be nervous at the sight of Muslims on an airplane. Rational folks are equally alarmed by the sight of masked anarchists or hooded klansmen. There is no reasonable argument here and the American people know it.

Where ever did Patrick Goldstein get the idea that Mel Gibson was a "devout Catholic"? He is neither a Catholic, as he is a member of a small protesting splinter group, nor devout, as he has divorced his wife, and the mother of his children, and had his sad subsequent dalliance. Please Patrick, get it right. This information is all readily available to the reporter or commentator who cares to get any of his details accurate. Your lack of credibility in small things makes your analysis of questionable value.

Patrick - Don't you read your own section? Just yesterday, in a Calendar section front-page article about the band "Die Antwoord" your colleague Chris Lee wrote: "For now, neither fans, art lovers nor the machers controlling record label purse strings seem to care."

I'm sorry, but when Mr. Lee and/or his editors make a point of using an italicized Yiddish word to describe not just any record label execs, but the ones controlling the "purse strings" - that is arguably as offensive an anti-Semitic stereotype as anything Rick Sanchez said. If there is a difference it's that it was a comment that was written and edited - rather than said extemporaneously in the heat of an interview.

Where's the apology from the Times?

 
1 2 3 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:



About the Bloggers


Categories


Archives
 


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: