Mel Gibson vs. Michael Richards at the Los Angeles Times

NewsBusters.org ^ | 23 November 2006 | Dave Pierre

[infoguy]

We all know about actor Michael Richards' racial epithets at last Friday night's performance at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles. But yesterday, this exclusive TMZ.com article revealed that the three-time Emmy-award-winning actor had also hurled anti-Semitic slurs at the Improv comedy club in April of this year. According to the piece, Richards yelled at an audience member, "You f***ing Jew. You people are the cause of Jesus dying." And here's the kicker: Richards' own representative has confirmed that this actually happened.

So how did the Los Angeles Times cover this latest revelation in today's paper (Thursday, November 23, 2006)? They didn't. In fact, the name "Michael Richards" appears nowhere in today's edition. Compared to the Mel Gibson episode from July, the Times is treating the angry slurs by Michael Richards much differently. Here's the rundown:

Between July 29 and August 9, 2006 (12 days), the Times published no less than 21 articles and commentaries related to Mel Gibson's DUI arrest and anti-Semitic outburst. (We're not including letters to the editor, either.) Four of these articles were prominently placed on the front page of the newspaper. Here is a list of some of the pieces that the Times published:

"Did Gibson Get a Break After Arrest?" July 30, 2006, page A1, 1554 words.

"Gibson's Newest 'Lethal Weapon' -- His Mouth," commentary by Steve Lopez, July 31, 2006, page B1, 955 words.

"Sheriff's Office Debated Gibson's Arrest Report," August 1, 2006, page A1, 2044 words.

"Critics Find Voice in Gibson Drama," August 1, 2006, page C1, 1049 words.

"Motive Behind Gibson Report Probed," August 2, 2006, page B1, 1198 words.

"Why D.A. Decided on Gibson DUI," August 3, 2006, page A1, 1295 words.

"Bigoted Gibson Admirers Sound Off," another commentary by Steve Lopez, August 3, 2006, page B1, 576 words.

"They Didn't See This in Gibson's Script," August 4, 2006, page A1, 2976 words.

"Clues dismissed in time of 'Passion'," by Tim Rutten, August 5, 2006, page E1, 1263 words. (This column was especially vitriolic and ugly; we confronted Rutten's bigotry in this post. And, fortunately, a Times reader nailed Rutten for his blatant anti-Catholicism; read about that here.)

In addition to yesterday's report that Richards had hurled anti-Semitic slurs back in April, there was the news that the two black men who were the objects of Richards' Friday attack have hired civil-rights attorney Gloria Allred. Yet neither of these stories appear in the paper today. Why?

The Times' slim coverage of the Richards' episode has also failed to answer several common questions:

What has been the reaction from activists in the community? (Lots of local media covered a press conference that was held on Monday November 20, 2006, at the Laugh Factory. Yet the only words about that conference in the Times come from a brief AP wire story (215 words) that the paper published in its "Quick Takes" section on page E3 of its entertainment-centered "Calendar" section. (A whopping 44 words are about the conference itself, and not a single activist is quoted.))

Following his racist tirade on Friday, why did the Laugh Factory allow Richards to return to perform at the club the next night?

Several reports (such as this one) have said that Richards said that he would apologize at the club on Saturday. However, no on-stage apology was issued. What did the Laugh Factory club do about this on Saturday and Sunday?

Why did the Laugh Factory wait until after a video of Richards' performance was made public to ban him from the club?

The coverage of Richards' episode in the Times has been pretty skimpy. In addition the small "Quick Takes" piece, the Times reported Richards' apology in this brief article on the bottom of page B3 on Tuesday. Then yesterday (Wednesday), last Friday's episode was written about in two tame pieces. Opinion writer Erin Aubry Kaplan authored the feeble "The O.J.-Kramer discrepancy," in which she actually wrote that she's an "O.J. neutralist," meaning that "to this day, I'm not sure whether he [killed Ron and Nicole]"(!). Then there was Paul Brownfield's timid "Backlash of the 'Borat' effect," in which he wrote about how the audience at David Letterman's Late Show appeared unaware about what was going in during Richards' on-air apology on Monday night.

Why the disparity is coverage? It seems pretty clear that the Times saw that they could use Mel Gibson's episode to further a personal attack against Gibson. They openly sought to connect Mel's tirade to his Passion of the Christ film. They used the episode to baselessly tar the Christian faith that Gibson openly professes. (See this post.) In doing this, the Times advanced the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, and anti-conservative tone that pervades its paper. (We've posted about this in a number of places, including here and here.) The Times cannot advance any such agenda with Michael Richards, so one could readily conclude that the paper's attitude is, "Why bother? Why make a Hollywood star look worse than he has to?"

Uneven coverage? Absolutely.

[A knight without armor]

I am a huge Seinfeld fan but guess what I would not have know who Micheal Richards is. I know the other main characters' real names. Strange. But anyway for whatever mental reason I have always liked Mel Gibson and I quickly forgave him for his insults. Yet Micheal Richards, I just don't care. I'm willing to let him twist in the wind. I'm horrible.

[LdSentinal]

They're both Hollywood bigots, but Mel Gibson is just plain nuts.

[Williams]

Putting aside Kramer's more recent racial diatribe, it seems highly unlikely to me that his anti-semitic comment was anything other than a joke. I very much doubt that he is a Christian who hates Jews for killing Christ. I suspect this "put down" was a Borat style satirical comment.

It seems to me that lots of today's comedians use racism, sexual humor, dirty words, etc, to get the shock type of laugh. Videotaping them at comedy clubs to prove they are racist or anything else is silly - unless we're actually going to start disaproving of how vulgar comedians in general have become.

[D-fendr]

Easter is simply a pagan celebration of fertility (read "sex") meant to displace God's designated (Ex 12, Lev 23) holy day of Passover.

For you maybe, but most of us here weren't raised pagan.

[Frwy]

"You f***ing Jew. You people are the cause of Jesus dying."

But most of us know that the Jews were not the reason Jesus had to die. Right? Right! Jesus had to die and was sent here on that very mission - to die for us sinners - to pay our sin debt because we couldn't. It required a sinless blood sacrifice to pay the price of the condemnation on all humanity's heads. No one person, no one group of persons was responsible. Sin had made us all responsible.

So not only was Richards' rude and disgusting, he was flat out wrong. He was ranting about something he doesn't even know about. I suggest to him to get his facts straight. His very soul and spirit depend on it.

[singfreedom]

I think you are absolutely correct. I've done stuff in my "salad days", when I had a few too many, that I sure wouldn't want to view on videotape. But Richard's rant bordered on the unhinged.

I used to sing in clubs occasionally, and I know just how annoying hecklers can be, but to totally "go off" on them, and yell racial slurs at them, was waaaay over the edge.

[Nathan Zachary]

"In fact, Easter is never mentioned in the Bible (nor is Christmas for that matter)."

Just so you know where Easter is mentioned in the bible, the Apostle Paul refers to "easter" in his first letter to the Corinthian Church where he states: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

Christ brought us out of sin, and defeated death offering us life everlasting. Easter is the most important celebration for Christians.

[From many - one.]

That's Passover.

[BradyLS]

Wellll.... Technically he didn't say it was funny. Just the best he had heard in a comedy club! :-)

[SR 50]

The irony of this whole Michael Richards mess is that he and the "Hollywood" types need to get with the program of PC, "political correctness", like the MSM. It seems perfectly OK, like the MSM to use "F'n and the N-word".
Like John F'n Kerry and N****r. Richards would have been OK if he had said, "F'n Jew" or "he's a N-word, he's a N-word, he's a N-word".

[napscoordinator]

I don't think you can compare Mel Gibson and Michael Richards. I mean come on. Mel was an A star who made a movie about Christianity and lived his life as a practicing Catholic. Michael Richards was on Seinfelt a great show, but has not done too much since AND has never said a word about Religion. Mel was hypocrite and Michael was just stupid. Big difference.

[wodinoneeye]

"In fact, Easter is never mentioned in the Bible (nor is Christmas for that matter)."


???? kind of a dim statement.

Easter is Christ's resurrection which damn well IS mentioned in the Bible.

Christmas? again Christ's birth IS covered in the Bible.

Maybe you need to look in a Bible that has the New Testament ????



Maybe you are confused by all those traditions of Santa/Reindeer/Trees/Bunnies???? Maybe you were never taught what real events those traditions are linked to.

[wodinoneeye]

"I don't think you can compare Mel Gibson and Michael Richards. I mean come on. Mel was an A star who made a movie about Christianity and lived his life as a practicing Catholic. Michael Richards was on Seinfelt a great show, but has not done too much since AND has never said a word about Religion. Mel was hypocrite and Michael was just stupid. Big difference."



Another difference: Mel was Drunk and whatsisface was not (or was he on drugs or somesuch????)

[Scutter]

Why the disparity is coverage? It seems pretty clear that the Times saw that they could use Mel Gibson's episode to further a personal attack against Gibson.

OR maybe it is because in the same announcement in which Richards spokesman confirmed the remarks, he also said that Richards is a Jew and that the remarks were part of the act.

I have nothing against Mel, but the author of this article is being disingenuous. There is no way you read the Richard's spokesman's statement and missed those two facts. To omit them shows an agenda. You don't win the hearts and minds of people with lies and half truths.

[beyond the sea]

Great article.

****

The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.

****

[OldFriend]

Thanks for your post. I thought it was only me that didn't find that 'joke' funny at all. Same old same old slander against the jews. Funny, NOT

[wastoute]

The point, I believe, should be that as long as one can tune in to BET and hear black comedians at "The Apollo" using the "n-word" with regularity there should not be an issue here. Yet I can watch such things with regularity and it isn't even unusual. What we have here is black racism. If the "n-word" is offensive, then it is offensive. If it's use is "reserved" for one racial group that is by defintion racist.

[SkyPilot]

Also, I believe that Richards is a Jew.

Nope - he isn't.

A representative told the media he was, but has now retracted that falsehood.

[Tribune7]

I think all of it's overblown. Regarding Richards maybe his tirade revealed closet racism or maybe it was just an attempt to be edgy that fell flat.

I'm more upset that Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by the worst kind of racists, continues to get a half-billion in public dollars.