Comments on: Fired by ESPN: First Rush, now TMQ?

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:45:31 +0000

Oh, and you’re absolutely correct that if he’d just said, “Movie executives shouldn’t worship money above all else”, with no mention of faith, he’d still have a job. Unless Eisner is really sensitive about criticism of his movies by underlings.

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:41:26 +0000

“Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?”

He says that Jews shouldn’t worship money above all else. Sure, he’s comparing them to Christians that do the same thing, but he’s still saying Jews are money crazy. Saying Christians are just doesn’t have the awful historical implications.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:02:04 +0000

Your statement, “I can see why people freaked out, characterizing Jews as money grubbing is a nasty and dangerous thing” is inaccurate. He actually characterized Christian movie execs as money-grubbing, then questioned whether Jewish execs would want to be viewed in the same light. I think Easterbrook was using history as evidence for his experience, which seems to be that Jewish people generally hold themselves to higher moral standard. If he had just said that he was astonished that people of any faith would promote such violence for money, he would have been much better off.

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:10:18 +0000

It gets bandied about a lot but that doesn’t make it ok. As Mickey Kaus said, why whould Anti-Semitism or the Holocaust impose special burdens or morality on its victims?

By: Ryan Waddell

Ryan Waddell — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:03:13 +0000

Really? Which group do you think would be offended, out of curiosity? Because it would seem to me that the idea of Jews being more sensitive to wholesale slaughter is one that gets bandied about quite a bit. I don’t know if I agree with it or not, but it’s definitely one that I see relatively often, and I haven’t seen any moral outrage with respect to those ones.

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:28:30 +0000

I still think some would find the idea that Jews should be more sensitive offensive.

By: Everybody Needs More Dick

Everybody Needs More Dick — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:40:54 +0000

Having finally read Easterbrook’s offending graf, it’s awkwardly phrased, but I think the sentiment isn’t even slightly offensive. If he had written the following, he would still have his job:

“We can’t expect movie executives to do anything but sell out, regardless of creed. However, given modern European history, one would hold out hope that Eisner and Weinstein, as Jews, would be particularly sensitive to killing people by the score as a public distraction.”

By: Ryan Waddell

Ryan Waddell — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:32:02 +0000

I’ve made my way well into the “ad ignorance” stage… they’re about as prevalent as background images are now… so perhaps subconsciously I’m seeing them, but I take no notice of ads anymore.

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:06:12 +0000

Well, your points are good, but I still consider it a paid service since I looked at all those ads.

By: Ryan Waddell

Ryan Waddell — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:55:07 +0000

Shrug… it was free for us. And now it’s gone. I believe Lisa Simpson made a comment along the same lines in an episode referring to Itchy and Scratchy, that they provided lots of entertainment for me free of charge (free for me), so frankly I don’t feel like they owe me anything. If they were smart and wanted to keep me as a reader, they would do something to appease my displeasure, but that’s purely a business decision.

As far as I’m concerned, they provided me entertainment at no personal cost to myself, and I provided an audience from which they made money in advertising. If I felt that was an unfair balance, THEN I might feel that I was owed something. I feel it was a pretty fair balance though.