when you excuse yourself you accuse yourself
did you see the whole deal about how ESPN has fired TMQ? I'm really, really angry about this. It's impossibly lame IMO. Have you read about this? What do you think?
Here's his original post...
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844
Then an apology...
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=868
Some of the firestorm...
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012068.php
And the firing...
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012081.php
The first swell of controversy was way overdone. That guy has written extensively about Christian/Jewish issues, and the negative/worst interpretations of his rambling original post seemed way harsh; I thought he deserved much better, even if he was illogical in his original post, which is a blog.
I really despise the way stuff like anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc. is so easily accused. And stuff with Jews in particular is crazy -- here's a guy who has a long history of supporting lots of Jewish interests, for years has written for a magazine that is a huge proponent of most Jewish/Israeli positions, and by all accounts is a guy who things that people's religion and their religious tradition should have some significance. It's not freaking anti-semitic to suggest that a person's religion is at odds with their actions. Now, in this case the point about Kill Bill seemed pretty weak to me, and calling out ones own "boss" (if you should call Eisner that, in this case) isn't exactly a good career move. So, I don't know, I'm not as bothered that he got fired compared to all the accusations of being anti-semitic, no matter what stupid thing he wrote. God it ticks me off. I just don't get how a guy can get vilified so much for, bascially, suggesting that religion and history should matter. Maybe he crossed a line by bringing up some traditional Jewish stereotypes but, like it or not, that stuff is an issue in that sense that much of a world war was fought cause of that crap and, if you browse through any english-language newspapers from places like saudia arabia or pakistan, it's obvious that those stereotypes still are a big problem. Moreso, I'm pissed off that I feel like I'm defending Rush Limbaugh instead of Gregg Easterbrook, who is not only ideollogically on the other end of the spectrum, but also one of my favorite persons to read regarding religious stuff.
plus the obvious similarities to the who thing with limbaugh on espn tv. that is so friggin lame cause it's a bad comparison, most notably cause easterbrook's "offensive comments" were written for a totally different media outlet unrelated to espn/disney and were in a totally different context. OK, i'm working myself up here. I'm glad he didn't quit and was instead fired. Maybe it's a good example why the head of a movie studio shouldn't also be the head of a giant media conglomerate that somehow owns a sports cable network that has a website, that has a sports-entertainment subsite that employs freelance writers who, besides sports, write about other stuff for other audiences and other outlets.
Here's his original post...
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844
Then an apology...
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=868
Some of the firestorm...
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012068.php
And the firing...
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012081.php
The first swell of controversy was way overdone. That guy has written extensively about Christian/Jewish issues, and the negative/worst interpretations of his rambling original post seemed way harsh; I thought he deserved much better, even if he was illogical in his original post, which is a blog.
I really despise the way stuff like anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc. is so easily accused. And stuff with Jews in particular is crazy -- here's a guy who has a long history of supporting lots of Jewish interests, for years has written for a magazine that is a huge proponent of most Jewish/Israeli positions, and by all accounts is a guy who things that people's religion and their religious tradition should have some significance. It's not freaking anti-semitic to suggest that a person's religion is at odds with their actions. Now, in this case the point about Kill Bill seemed pretty weak to me, and calling out ones own "boss" (if you should call Eisner that, in this case) isn't exactly a good career move. So, I don't know, I'm not as bothered that he got fired compared to all the accusations of being anti-semitic, no matter what stupid thing he wrote. God it ticks me off. I just don't get how a guy can get vilified so much for, bascially, suggesting that religion and history should matter. Maybe he crossed a line by bringing up some traditional Jewish stereotypes but, like it or not, that stuff is an issue in that sense that much of a world war was fought cause of that crap and, if you browse through any english-language newspapers from places like saudia arabia or pakistan, it's obvious that those stereotypes still are a big problem. Moreso, I'm pissed off that I feel like I'm defending Rush Limbaugh instead of Gregg Easterbrook, who is not only ideollogically on the other end of the spectrum, but also one of my favorite persons to read regarding religious stuff.
plus the obvious similarities to the who thing with limbaugh on espn tv. that is so friggin lame cause it's a bad comparison, most notably cause easterbrook's "offensive comments" were written for a totally different media outlet unrelated to espn/disney and were in a totally different context. OK, i'm working myself up here. I'm glad he didn't quit and was instead fired. Maybe it's a good example why the head of a movie studio shouldn't also be the head of a giant media conglomerate that somehow owns a sports cable network that has a website, that has a sports-entertainment subsite that employs freelance writers who, besides sports, write about other stuff for other audiences and other outlets.
posted by Michael @ 11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home