One of the things that upset some people about Mr. Easterbrook’s rant against violent movies is that it made value judgements. The fact that Mr. Easterbrook feels that there are higher values than the profit motive has some, like libertarian Virginia Postrel, claiming that he’s anti-capitalist which is downright nutty. If somebody says there are things you shouldn’t do to make a buck, most people would agree. There would be some disagreement about exactly what those things are that you shouldn’t do, and I realize that doctrinaire libertarians have a somewhat smaller list than most people, but having such a list doesn’t make you anti-capitalist. My rule of thumb is that people are perfectly happy making judgements based on their own value system, but bristle when other people mention their own value judgements if they don’t share the same value system.

Another problem for Mr. Easterbrook is that Jewishness is both an ethnicity and a religion, unlike for instance Christianity. Thus while he was comparing the behavior of certain individuals to the values of their religion (Judeism), others heard it as a slam on Jews the ethnic group. He could have, and I expect would have, made an appeal to Christian values if it had been different movie moguls – just as he did with Mel Gibson in an prior post.

Lastly, he got in trouble because you could lift out a single sentance out of his post: “Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?” and fool people into thinking he was claiming that Jews in general worship money above all else. The trouble with words is that they can be taken out of context while they are always given in context – always. The context of that sentance makes it clear that he was talking about two particular Jewish executives. That gives me another rule of thumb, namely don’t get outraged until you’ve seen the full statement, not just the excerpts.

Tags: Easterbrook, violent movies

I used to look forward to reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback by Gregg Easterbrook Not only did he write a great sports column, it was filled with all kinds of other non-sports goodies (not to mention cheerleaders). It had to be one of their most read sections based on the number of people I know who reguarly read it. Well, Mr. Easterbrook not only was fired, but he has been removed from ESPN’s site as if he never wrote for them. At this point, ESPN hasn’t announced why he was fired. He just wrote an entry for his blog at The New Republic that some considered anti-semetic but which I found (contrarian that I am) pro-semetic. The passage in question:

“Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney’s CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? “

The complaint was “Did he just blame Jews for being greedy, money-grubbing Hollywood executives partly responsible for today’s real-life violence?” Ah, no, what he did was say that two particular Jewish executives worshiped money above all else, and he went on to pretty much hold Jews to a higher standard implying that because of their experience of violence in the Holocaust they ought to understand the impact of the glorification of violence. And he did implicitly claim that the glorification of violence in movies does have an impact on societies world wide.

If Mr. Easterbrook had said that (all) Jews worship money above all else, that would have been clearly anti-semetic and wrong. But what he said (to me, anyway), is that these two particular Jews worshiped money above all else (and not because they were Jews). This is important, because we should be able to call out individual behavior regardless of whether or not that behavior has been an unfair stereotype of a particular group in the past.

Ms. Yourish wasn’t done though, she moved from the debatable to to the clearly wrong when she said that Mr. Easterbrook “All the while, of course, giving the Hollywood Christian executives (and other religions) a complete pass”. Obviously, she missed the whole statement “Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence.” In other words, Mr. Easterbrook in his column said that Jewish, Christian, and other Hollywood executives worshiped money above all else by promoting for profit the adulation of violence. He didn’t single out Jews in general; he singled out Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein in particular because they are the executives ultimately responsible for Kill Bill, which is what the column was about.

Now back to ESPN. Should they have fired Mr. Easterbrook? No. Even if his original post could be construed as anti-semitic or you don’t think Jews should be held to a higher standard, he quickly explained his position and apologized for any offence he might have given. He isn’t anti-semitic. If he was fired because he attacked his ultimate boss at ESPN, Michael Eisner, even though it was in a publication unrelated to ESPN or Disney, that is an even worse reason. Ultimately, I think some other sports web site (whether Fox Sports, or CBS sports, or Sports Illustrated) should pick up his TMQ column – not out of the goodness of their hearts, but as a shrewd business move – it’s popular. I know I won’t be bothering with ESPN.com without TMQ – their news and analysis isn’t any better than anybody elses.

Tags: Easterbrook, violent movies