Times Watch for August 6, 2003
Frank Richs Persecution Complex
In his Sunday op-ed, Mel Gibsons Martyrdom Complex, Times associate editor
Frank Rich hypocritically attacks the actor-directors upcoming movie The
Passion, a document of the last 12 hours of the life of Christ.
Richs story opens: The
Jews didn't kill Christ, my stepfather was fond of saying. They just worried
him to death. Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household
when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least,
that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves. These days American
Jews don't have to fret too much about the charge of deicide-or didn't, until
Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called The Passion,
about Jesus' final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to.
Asked by Bill O'Reilly in January if his movie might upset any Jewish people,
Mr. Gibson responded: It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just
tell the truth.Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look
at their own culpability.
But Rich here is
engaged in a bit of
Maureen
Dowdism - the dishonest deletion of quoted
material for political gain. Heres the full exchange between host OReilly and
Gibson:
OReilly: Is it going to upset any Jewish people?
Gibson: It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I
want to be as truthful as possible. But you know, when you look at the reasons
behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind. He
suffered for all mankind. So that really, anybody who transgresses has to look
at their own part, or look at their own culpability.
The full quote makes it clear Gibson is talking about the transgressions of
all mankind, not just Jews. Supporting that interpretation is a March 7 Wall
Street Journal piece on the making of the movie, where Gibson turns moral
judgment upon himself: Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own
culpability in that.
Rich hasnt seen the
movie (or even read the script); what he knows is based on critical comments by
a group of Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars with access to an early version of
the script. He writes: Perhaps The Passion bears little resemblance to that
script. Either way, however, damage has been done: Jews have already been
libeled by Mr. Gibson's politicized rollout of his film.
Before that, Rich
claims the movies real tinder-box effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism
has metastasized since 9/11, and where Mr. Gibson is arguably more of an icon
(as his production company is named) than he is at home.
Its good that Rich has
a healthy concern about anti-Semitism abroad, but has Rich ever before worried a
movie would encourage violence? In the past, hes ridiculed the idea, as he did
June 19, 1999: For even if Washington would or could clean up Hollywood
without violating the First Amendment, there's scant evidence to suggest that
doing so would prevent a single Columbine.In the sensible formulation of
Jonathan Kellerman, a best-selling novelist and clinical child psychologist,
Movies and videogames don't turn good kids bad, and bad kids are dangerous long
before they watch their first gorefest..In fact school violence and juvenile
arrests, as well as murder rates, have declined as movies have become bloodier.
And his unrelenting criticism of what he thinks will be a flop movie seems
hypocritical, considering what he wrote in 1995 about conservative criticism of
another controversial movie: the pro-gay, anti-Catholic Church release Priest.
On April 20, 1995, in Doles Moral Stand, Rich lamented how ugly it was when
politicians (in this case, Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole)
criticized movies they hadnt seen: It's when politicians enter the fray,
exploiting a movie they haven't seen to impress voters with their own moral
authority, that the Priest controversy turns ugly..In an interview, Harvey
Weinstein, co-chairman of Miramax, the Disney subsidiary that is distributing
Priestwas angry that Mr. Dole would be so intellectually dishonest as to
demonize a movie he hadn't seen. (But Rich hasnt seen The Passion either.)
Criticizing Doles reaction to Priest, Rich fumed: Its so much easier to
blast a little English movie that only a limited audience of art-house patrons
will see. Yet Rich is attacking Gibsons movie although he says it's
hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America. It
doesnt even have a distributor yet. So why criticize Dole for picking on
Priest?
Rich also accuses
Gibson of Jew-baiting: His game from the start has been to foment the
old-as-Hollywood canard that the entertainment elite (which just happens to be
Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie. But based on what? According to
databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized The
Passion when Mr. Gibson went on Bill O'Reilly's show on Jan. 14 to defend
himself against any Jewish people who might attack the film.
Excuse me? Gibson was
responding to a question from OReilly. The phrase any Jewish people came from
OReilly, not Gibson. Yet Rich repeats his charge: Nor had anyone yet publicly
criticized The Passion or Mr. Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal
ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish
critics who didn't yet exist.
Again, Rich is
misleading his readers. This is from the Wall Street
Journal piece by Raymond Arroyo: Focusing on the trial and death of Christ will
inevitably cause some controversy. This is dangerous territory we're in here,
Mr. Gibson admits. As for the question of blame for Christ's crucifixion-a
vexed subject that has fueled anti-Semitism over the centuries-Mr. Gibson says
that this is not a Christian vs. Jewish thing-'He came into the world and it
knew Him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own
culpability in that. Again, Gibson wasnt making a pre-emptive attack on Jews,
but simply responding to a question posed by a reporter.
Rich concludes: But
the real question here is why Mr. Gibson and his minions would go out of their
way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile
historical moment. Rich seems quite happy to do that himself.
For the rest of Frank Richs attack on Mel
Gibsons The Passion,
click here:
Anti-Semitism | Catholicism |
Maureen Dowd | Entertainment
| Mel Gibson | Movies |
Frank Rich
Times
Bias Takes To the Air
The Times picked
the wrong guy to review "Nuclear Nightmare, their co-production (with the
Discovery Channel) on North Koreas nuclear program. Michael Mazarr, a
professor at the National War College, reviews the documentary for the Wednesday
Arts section and takes it to task for being liberal with a veneer of
objectivity. (A pretty good description of a lot of Times-associated
journalism, actually.)
Mazarr writes:
Watching its portrait of the Korean nuclear issue, I kept thinking Frontline
Lite. In format (hourlong documentary), tone (urgent crises breathlessly
described by bass-voiced narrator) and political slant (liberal with a veneer of
objectivity, to judge by this example), Spotlight emulates the veteran PBS
series right down to the look and feel of its opening credits.
He goes on to call it a
workmanlike slog through what might best be described as the
centrist/left-of-center conventional wisdom about North Korea, mischaracterizing
key events in the process. The program's political slant emerges slowly, but
grips tighter as the hour unfolds: through its portrayal of events and choice of
expert commentary, the program firmly endorses the Clinton administration's
policy of engagement.All of this might be correct- this reviewer sympathizes
with each of these arguments-but in a program presumably aiming at objectivity,
the bias strikes a jarring note.
Then Mazarr really
twists the knife: It is inevitable to compare Spotlight to its apparent
model. The PBS program in fact recently showed its own North Korea profile; the
scenes, the interviews, the overall presentation of Kim's Nuclear Gamble"are
of a notably higher caliber than Nuclear Nightmare and the program is more
balanced to boot. Frontline talks to an ideologically wider range of experts
and presents a real debate on the Korean issue, even if it does perceptibly
endorse an engagement policy.
Wow. When youre
outclassed by the PBS series Frontline
documentary in the balance department, something is very wrong.
For the rest of Michael Mazarrs review of
"Nuclear Nightmare,
click here:
Discovery Channel |
Documentary | Frontline |
Liberal Bias |
Michael Mazarr |
North Korea
Times
Promises Warm Liberian Welcome for U.S. Troops
Wednesdays Times
continues trying to coax the U.S. into Liberia, with visions of welcoming
natives. In addition to the usual front-page story by Somini Sengupta comes
Steven Weisman on Liberia. Weismans story, Officials Say U.S. Troops Role
Will Be Small, leans heavily on unnamed State Department and U.N. sources:
[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and his aides have cited another reason for
opposing a larger American involvement. The political situation is too unstable,
they say, for outsiders to enforce a peace among warring factions. But that
worry is being answered, in the view of diplomats at the State Department and
the United Nations, by urgent negotiations toward a political arrangement in
which a caretaker government would run Liberia while plans are made for
power-sharing among various groups.
As usual, Among
diplomats in the administration, there is some embarrassment that President
Bush's promise to be helpful to Liberia, made at the beginning of his trip to
Africa last month, has not been followed by an introduction of troops.Some
impatience is rising. A Western diplomat involved in the issue said today that
the cheering in Liberia for the Nigerian force that entered Monrovia on Monday
showed that American forces would be welcomed and not have to worry about
becoming enmeshed in an endless civil war. You saw the picture in the paper
today of Liberians carrying a Nigerian peacekeeper on their shoulders, said the
diplomat. That should have been an American peacekeeper they were carrying.
The newly minted
interventionists at the Times portray U.S. intervention in Liberia as a
cakewalk, freely predicting the natives will welcome U.S. troops with open arms.
Of course, the Times
mocked U.S. officials who advanced similar arguments about intervention in
Iraq.
Whats changed? Perhaps
that the U.S. has no national security interest in Liberia, so the Times can
indulge in liberal interventionism without the apparently dangerous possibility
that doing so could advance U.S. interests.
For the rest of Stephen Weismans story on
possible U.S. intervention in Liberia,
click here:
Africa |
Liberia |
Iraq War |
Stephen Weisman