Posted on 11/23/2006 8:25:06 PM PST by 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.
LOL. Catholics can't be Masons.
My BIL has worked for a medium-sized newspaper for many years. Yesterday he said (and he was sober at the time) that investing in newsprint paper manufacturers was a very poor long-term investment. According to him (and to many others here and elsewhere) newspapers are a dying breed.
I bring this up to point out that the only papers that will survive the internet will be the tabloids and with stories such as have been carried lately by the various "Times" organizations, it's obvious they are trying to get a head-start on survival.
The old media is much, much more than the slimy newspapers. And they still rule the opinions of the ignorant and less-than-well-informed voters/citizens.
The papers are dying, of course they are, now work on the hard cover magazines, the entire publishing industry, the entertainment business, the advertising industry, the public schools, which really are an arm of liberal media, etc., etc.
Here's hoping you had a great Thanksgiving.
Funny, some members of the Catholic branch of my extended family are.
Sorry if I appeared adversarial. I didn't intend to be.
;-)
I have constant back pain, work about 14 hours a day. I meant no aggressiveness toward you.
Honestly. I just hate the old media more than six root canals.
;-)
no harm - no foul. Get well or get a better pain medicine.
;-)
I bet you also have a great personality and are Rubenesque. You might also like jazz, love walks on the beach and are looking for someone who's financially secure?
"In fact, Easter is never mentioned in the Bible (nor is Christmas for that matter).
Perhaps you should try reading it first before you make such rediculous statements.
"on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures!"
From what I understand, his "vodka" causes more pain that it relieves. Up until a short while ago you could have asked someone who had actually drank some but I believe he's unavailable now. Pity.
"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." "
And don't tell me I don't have a sense of humor - I have a wonderful sense of humor.
I bet you also have a great personality and are Rubenesque. You might also like jazz, love walks on the beach and are looking for someone who's financially secure?
lol...........
Ah, I see. You don't, in fact, have a sense of humor.
Furthermore - don't try to do *anything* for me or anyone else "for [our] own good". You'll just end up frustrating yourself and pissing off people who might otherwise be willing to overlook your monomania.
Just a thought.
Regards,
MK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.