Greg Easterbook and the TMQ - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Soggybagel · 10-21-2003, 10:02 PM

Not sure if any of you frequented the ESPN website or the PAGE 2 portion but TMQ aka Tuesday Morning Quarterback was in my opinon one of the best weekly articles online. Well ESPN canned him today over comments he made on an entirely different subject matter.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004194 Link there basically explains it all...but for those to lazy to go there...

Easterbrook stepped in it by writing a scathing review of the movie Kill Bill (at The New Republic) that criticized Disney head honcho Michael Eisner and inadvertently came off as racially prejudiced. A quick clarification and abject apology wasn't enough, and now Easterbrook joins Limbaugh in the ESPN dumpster. (Yes, he was fired from a job at ESPN for something he wrote elsewhere.) In a particularly Stalinst flourish, ESPN has removed all record of past TMQ columns from its site. Try to search there for "Easterbrook" or "TMQ" and see what happens. Thank goodness we here at TR don't have to answer to higher-ups at some massive media conglomerate.

Give props to The Tech Report for coming up with that little synopsis of the whole ordeal.

dy156 · 10-22-2003, 08:32 AM

I really missed TMQ yesterday. His football column originally was on Slate.com, and I hope they pick it back up. I also think it's shitty to can someone for something he wrote that was not on ESPN.com.
He criticized Eisner, the head of Disney (which owns ESPN and Miramax-who distributed the movie Kill Bill) and others for placing their desire to make money above their faith by making such violent and morally reprehensible films. (my paraphrase) Eisner, who is jewish, and the other Disney executives criticized, who are too, took offense to this.
Had he criticized non-jews in the same manner, the result would not likely have been the same. I guess jews are, given their stereotype, rather sensitive to charges like this.
TMQ was the best football column on the internet, bar none, and it pisses me off that he was fired!

dy156 · 10-22-2003, 08:41 AM

decide for yourself

his controversial post

10.13.03

TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence.

All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.

Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film.

Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.

And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.

And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment.

Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern.

Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.

Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

posted 09:24 a.m.

E-mail Easterblogg
Return to main listing

his apology

10.16.03

AN APOLOGY: Nothing's worse, as a writer, than so mangling your own use of words that you are heard to have said something radically different than what you wished to express. Of mangling words, I am guilty.

Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun? Below is the paragraph I wrote that's causing the stir (to read the item in its entirety from the beginning click here). I quote it verbatim so that you can see how easy it is, on subjects like these, for good righteous anger to turn offensive by a careless choice of words:

Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? Maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece--what you see above comes at the end of a 1,017-word column that's otherwise about why movies should not glorify violence. Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it.
Looking back I did a terrible job through poor wording. It was terrible that I implied that the Jewishness of studio executives has anything whatsoever to do with awful movies like Kill Bill. Nothing about Eisner or Weinstein causes any movie to be bad or awful; they're just supervisors. For all I know neither of them even focused on the adoration-of-violence aspect until the reviews came out. My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy.

Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.

Every reporter who has called me today has asked me my faith. Since I say this is relevant for others, it's relevant for me. I'm a Christian. I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. This website describes the Bradley Hills Presbyterian (USA) side of the church. This website describes Bethesda Jewish, a Klal Yisrael ("All Israel") congregation that shares the same worship spaces and finances. Two years ago I wrote in The New Republic of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea. Bad idea: writing poorly about this, and being misunderstood. Again, I'm sorry.

posted 11:55 p.m.

E-mail Easterblogg
Return to main listing

Darkblack · 10-22-2003, 09:07 AM

Guilty as charged. Glad he is canned. There is no reason at all to ever bring up someone's race, religion, or sex when talking about things like this. Glad he is gone.

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
Guilty as charged. Glad he is canned. There is no reason at all to ever bring up someone's race, religion, or sex when talking about things like this. Glad he is gone.

What on earth does what he said have anything to do with ESPN or football? How is ESPN justified in firing him for [albeit poorly] expressing his opinion about Kill Bill, and Hollywood in general?

JBX · 10-22-2003, 10:24 AM

Why can't you have an opinion anymore? This over sensitivity has to stop.

Darkblack · 10-22-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
What on earth does what he said have anything to do with ESPN or football? How is ESPN justified in firing him for [albeit poorly] expressing his opinion about Kill Bill, and Hollywood in general?

Because he still represents his job even when not on the job.

Do you think it is ok for say a police officer to go to KKK meetings when he is off duty?

Same thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by JBX
Why can't you have an opinion anymore? This over sensitivity has to stop.

You can have an opinion. With an opinion come consequences. If you want to be racist you must understand that that can have an effect on how others perceive you. If you are perceived in a negative light, you might just lose your job.

This is not oversensitive. He was blaming their greed on them being Jewish. That is wrong.

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
Because he still represents his job even when not on the job.

Do you think it is ok for say a police officer to go to KKK meetings when he is off duty?

Same thing.

Although it is hardly the same thing, yes, a police officer should be able to go to KKK meetings when he is off duty as long as he is able to perform his job well and impartially.

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
You can have an opinion. With an opinion come consequences. If you want to be racist you must understand that that can have an effect on how others perceive you. If you are perceived in a negative light, you might just lose your job.

This is not oversensitive. He was blaming their greed on them being Jewish. That is wrong.

You should try reading the entire post -- that is not what he meant at all. He was slamming the Jews that run Disney because they were profiting from what he considers filth, not because they were Jewish. It's a pretty far-fetched claim to suggest that he is a racist/anti-semite rather than just a moral-idealist.

dy156 · 10-22-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

This is not oversensitive. He was blaming their greed on them being Jewish. That is wrong.

No, he was saying that because they were religious, and people from their religion/ethnic background had been senselessly killed, they should not be making or supporting these films, except that they were greedy. Had he said this about a Methodist, Mormon, or a Muslim, he would not have been fired or have caused controversy, because those religions aren't hyper-sensitive to charges of being greedy. (you could argue that these people too had been senselessly persecuted at some point.)

Well, he might have been fired, it's never a good idea to openly criticize the big boss, but it wouldn't have caused such a controversy or gotten the Anti-Defamation of Methodists League involved.

Darkblack · 10-22-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Although it is hardly the same thing, yes, a police officer should be able to go to KKK meetings when he is off duty as long as he is able to perform his job well and impartially.

I disagree. How can a man with the job to uphold the law hold such extreme views? Are you telling me a man that thinks someone is less than human because of the color of his or her skin would be able to be a middleman in a dispute between a white and black man?

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
You should try reading the entire post -- that is not what he meant at all. He was slamming the Jews that run Disney because they were profiting from what he considers filth, not because they were Jewish. It's a pretty far-fetched claim to suggest that he is a racist/anti-Semite rather than just a moral-idealist.

Quote:

Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.

If it wasn't racist or anti-Semite it would not say Jews or Jewish. Because their religion and race have nothing to do with the way they promote movies. So I will disagree with you.

dy156 · 10-22-2003, 11:39 AM

There was a reason to bring up their religion/race without being an anti-semite. He explained this better than I could:

Quote:

I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.

Darkblack · 10-22-2003, 11:50 AM

I don't find that as an expectable explanation. This is what he says once he is back-pedaling. This is what he meant to say after the fact, not what he said or meant when writing the original in my opinion.

Soggybagel · 10-22-2003, 12:21 PM

Well do you think that the firing was the Result of Eisner and co. owning ESPN? Sure it didn't help. Secondly, I don't think it was overtly anti sematic. If you've read the article on THE PASSION it wasn't any worse than that. Bottom line is I'm pissed that TMQ is gone.

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
I don't find that as an expectable explanation. This is what he says once he is back-pedaling. This is what he meant to say after the fact, not what he said or meant when writing the original in my opinion.

He didn't in any way retract his statement, so I don't see how you can think of his response/"apology" as back-pedaling. He was merely trying to explain himself to hyper-sensitive name-calling liberals.

maximusveritas · 10-22-2003, 01:01 PM

I still don't understand what Easterbrook was trying to say when he brought up the fact that Eisner and Weinstein are Jewish. I don't think it was anti-semitic but it was certainly ill-conceived, as he admits.
His firing at ESPN should come as no surprise. Generally, when you publicly criticize your boss, your days are numbered.
But I don't think Easterbrook's case is as bad as Limbaugh's and I'm pretty sure he will be able to put this behind him and continue his work without ESPN.

Spartak · 10-22-2003, 01:30 PM

Hm,

What he said seems to be comepletely uncalled for and out of line, if he just didn't put in that final paragraph I'd be enjoying the TMQ collumn right now.

Darkblack · 10-22-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spartak
Hm,

What he said seems to be comepletely uncalled for and out of line, if he just didn't put in that final paragraph I'd be enjoying the TMQ collumn right now.

Agreed

HarmlessRabbit · 10-22-2003, 05:06 PM

I read a really good article on Slate about this whole thing:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090091/

I think calling Jews greedy is just like making watermelon jokes about blacks, calling hispanics lazy, or calling the Irish drunks. It's invoking the worst possible stereotype of the culture. For a professional writer to not realize that is a fireable offense in my book, for stupidity if nothing else.

emidew22 · 10-22-2003, 05:45 PM

Would someone please remove the giant stick out of America's ass?!?! The man has a right to his opinion, and the freedom to express it. That's what makes this country great. What makes things shitty is when people get hypersensative and forget to be adult and have a little understanding and then someone is unjustly punished. You were offended by what was written? Well he's sorry you were offended, and if you give him a chance, he'll try to explain what he really meant. Not happy with the apology, still say he's racist? Well fuck, dude, i didn't know you could read minds. Tell me what i'm thinking right now. He said he's sorry, he tried to explain himself, and that should end the issue right there. There is NO reason for him to lose his completely unrelated job for his statements.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-22-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emidew22
There is NO reason for him to lose his completely unrelated job for his statements.

I think you're missing the point of his firing. ESPN is owned by Disney. Michael Eisner is CEO of Disney.

So, in summary, he called his CEO a greedy Jew and got fired for it.

Are you guys saying that he shouldn't be fired saying that a CEO should be restricted from hiring or firing anyone he/she chooses?

Food Eater Lad · 10-22-2003, 07:05 PM

The article was fine untill he mentioned the producer's religion. That was uncalled for. Was it a fireable offence? Only in today's ultra PC society. Remember, the unpopular opinion must not be tolerated.

Nizzle · 10-25-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
The article was fine untill he mentioned the producer's religion. That was uncalled for. Was it a fireable offence? Only in today's ultra PC society. Remember, the unpopular opinion must not be tolerated.

ESPN is owned by Disney.

When you write an article accusing your boss of being a money-hungry Jew who is directly responsible for Islamic terrorism and the shootings at Columbine, what do you expect?

10-21-2003, 10:02 PM	#1 (permalink)
Soggybagel Psycho Location: Lovely City #1	Greg Easterbook and the TMQ Not sure if any of you frequented the ESPN website or the PAGE 2 portion but TMQ aka Tuesday Morning Quarterback was in my opinon one of the best weekly articles online. Well ESPN canned him today over comments he made on an entirely different subject matter. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004194 Link there basically explains it all...but for those to lazy to go there... Easterbrook stepped in it by writing a scathing review of the movie Kill Bill (at The New Republic) that criticized Disney head honcho Michael Eisner and inadvertently came off as racially prejudiced. A quick clarification and abject apology wasn't enough, and now Easterbrook joins Limbaugh in the ESPN dumpster. (Yes, he was fired from a job at ESPN for something he wrote elsewhere.) In a particularly Stalinst flourish, ESPN has removed all record of past TMQ columns from its site. Try to search there for "Easterbrook" or "TMQ" and see what happens. Thank goodness we here at TR don't have to answer to higher-ups at some massive media conglomerate. Give props to The Tech Report for coming up with that little synopsis of the whole ordeal.

10-22-2003, 10:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Why can't you have an opinion anymore? This over sensitivity has to stop. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

10-22-2003, 01:30 PM	#16 (permalink)
Spartak Bang bang Location: New Zealand	Hm, What he said seems to be comepletely uncalled for and out of line, if he just didn't put in that final paragraph I'd be enjoying the TMQ collumn right now. __________________ I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind... Last edited by Spartak; 10-22-2003 at 01:33 PM..

10-22-2003, 08:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	I really missed TMQ yesterday. His football column originally was on Slate.com, and I hope they pick it back up. I also think it's shitty to can someone for something he wrote that was not on ESPN.com. He criticized Eisner, the head of Disney (which owns ESPN and Miramax-who distributed the movie Kill Bill) and others for placing their desire to make money above their faith by making such violent and morally reprehensible films. (my paraphrase) Eisner, who is jewish, and the other Disney executives criticized, who are too, took offense to this. Had he criticized non-jews in the same manner, the result would not likely have been the same. I guess jews are, given their stereotype, rather sensitive to charges like this. TMQ was the best football column on the internet, bar none, and it pisses me off that he was fired!

10-22-2003, 08:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	decide for yourself his controversial post 10.13.03 TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence. All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head. Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film. Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original. And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel. And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment. Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern. Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers. Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself. posted 09:24 a.m. E-mail Easterblogg Return to main listing his apology 10.16.03 AN APOLOGY: Nothing's worse, as a writer, than so mangling your own use of words that you are heard to have said something radically different than what you wished to express. Of mangling words, I am guilty. Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence. But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun? Below is the paragraph I wrote that's causing the stir (to read the item in its entirety from the beginning click here). I quote it verbatim so that you can see how easy it is, on subjects like these, for good righteous anger to turn offensive by a careless choice of words: Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself. I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? Maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece--what you see above comes at the end of a 1,017-word column that's otherwise about why movies should not glorify violence. Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it. Looking back I did a terrible job through poor wording. It was terrible that I implied that the Jewishness of studio executives has anything whatsoever to do with awful movies like Kill Bill. Nothing about Eisner or Weinstein causes any movie to be bad or awful; they're just supervisors. For all I know neither of them even focused on the adoration-of-violence aspect until the reviews came out. My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy. Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize. Every reporter who has called me today has asked me my faith. Since I say this is relevant for others, it's relevant for me. I'm a Christian. I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. This website describes the Bradley Hills Presbyterian (USA) side of the church. This website describes Bethesda Jewish, a Klal Yisrael ("All Israel") congregation that shares the same worship spaces and finances. Two years ago I wrote in The New Republic of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea. Bad idea: writing poorly about this, and being misunderstood. Again, I'm sorry. posted 11:55 p.m. E-mail Easterblogg Return to main listing

10-22-2003, 09:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	Guilty as charged. Glad he is canned. There is no reason at all to ever bring up someone's race, religion, or sex when talking about things like this. Glad he is gone.

10-22-2003, 11:50 AM	#12 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	I don't find that as an expectable explanation. This is what he says once he is back-pedaling. This is what he meant to say after the fact, not what he said or meant when writing the original in my opinion.

10-22-2003, 12:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
Soggybagel Psycho Location: Lovely City #1	Well do you think that the firing was the Result of Eisner and co. owning ESPN? Sure it didn't help. Secondly, I don't think it was overtly anti sematic. If you've read the article on THE PASSION it wasn't any worse than that. Bottom line is I'm pissed that TMQ is gone.

10-22-2003, 01:01 PM	#15 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I still don't understand what Easterbrook was trying to say when he brought up the fact that Eisner and Weinstein are Jewish. I don't think it was anti-semitic but it was certainly ill-conceived, as he admits. His firing at ESPN should come as no surprise. Generally, when you publicly criticize your boss, your days are numbered. But I don't think Easterbrook's case is as bad as Limbaugh's and I'm pretty sure he will be able to put this behind him and continue his work without ESPN.

10-22-2003, 05:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	I read a really good article on Slate about this whole thing: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090091/ I think calling Jews greedy is just like making watermelon jokes about blacks, calling hispanics lazy, or calling the Irish drunks. It's invoking the worst possible stereotype of the culture. For a professional writer to not realize that is a fireable offense in my book, for stupidity if nothing else.

10-22-2003, 05:45 PM	#19 (permalink)
emidew22 Upright Location: Boston	Would someone please remove the giant stick out of America's ass?!?! The man has a right to his opinion, and the freedom to express it. That's what makes this country great. What makes things shitty is when people get hypersensative and forget to be adult and have a little understanding and then someone is unjustly punished. You were offended by what was written? Well he's sorry you were offended, and if you give him a chance, he'll try to explain what he really meant. Not happy with the apology, still say he's racist? Well fuck, dude, i didn't know you could read minds. Tell me what i'm thinking right now. He said he's sorry, he tried to explain himself, and that should end the issue right there. There is NO reason for him to lose his completely unrelated job for his statements.

10-22-2003, 07:05 PM	#21 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	The article was fine untill he mentioned the producer's religion. That was uncalled for. Was it a fireable offence? Only in today's ultra PC society. Remember, the unpopular opinion must not be tolerated.