Monday, October 20, 2003

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)


Last thoughts on Easterbrook

The New Republic's editors have just posted their response to the Easterbrook donnybrook. Worth a read. A key paragraph:

But, while we understand the outrage that Easterbrook's comment has caused, we are concerned also about the brutality of some of the criticism. There is another, important side to this story. We have known Easterbrook for many years, and we wish to say without doubt or hesitation that he is not an anti-Semite. Indeed, he is a person of high integrity. He has written prolifically and thoughtfully and with great erudition on many subjects, including science, the environment, politics, and religion; and the moral sensibility that appears in his writings is that of tolerance and open-mindedness. The many editors and writers who have worked with him over the decades of his career--at Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and The Washington Monthly, to name but a few--can all attest not only to his talent, but to his character. A good individual said a bad thing. Sometimes this happens. (Sometimes a bad individual says a good thing.) When it happens, he must credibly express his regret, and his understanding of how he erred. This Easterbrook has done. We have seen too many reputations unjustly ruined by media inquisitions and the vituperative politics of ethnic insult in America. We hope that the firmness with which Easterbrook's awful remark has been judged will be attended by fairness in the consideration of his character and his career. What he wrote last week is the terrible exception, not the terrible rule.

Mickey Kaus' post on the subject strikes a similar tone:

I've known Gregg Easterbrook since 1979, when he was hired as a fellow editor at The Washington Monthly. He's not remotely an anti-Semite, as his colleagues from the The New Republic have attested, nor have I ever heard him express a bigoted thought in the 24 years I've known him. He's one of the smartest people I've ever met, and he's produced some of the best journalism I've ever read, and he's extremely funny (as his ESPN readers know)--yet he also has a slightly clumsy, emotional, well-meaning earnestness about him. That may be part of what got him into trouble. But the easiest thing to to say about the Easterblogg controversy is that this wasn't a case of the mask slipping to reveal a writer's previously concealed, ugly thoughts (despite Roger Simon's reasonable suspicions). Forget that idea.

Finally, The Power Line reprints an e-mail from Easterbrook that is making the rounds of the blogosphere. [UPDATE: Easterbrook says this e-mail is not genuine. See this post for more.] Some of the disconcerting sections:

Yesterday I was told to expect to be fired by ESPN. It hasn't happened yet, but seems likely [he has since been fired by ESPN]. Friday the top officers of ESPN refused several orders from Michael Eisner, the head of Disney, that I be fired. By the end of the day it seemed likely they would give in....

Yesterday I was told by an ally within Disney corporate that Eisner has assigned people to try to destroy the book [The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse] -- to get Time to drop the serial, to keep me off interview shows, even to get Random House to kill the book. In a published body of work that now extends to millions of words, I have written three foolish and wrong sentences. Now I've not only lost reputation and half my income (ESPN): what matters to me most in all the world, my book writing, is in jeopardy at the worst possible time. And I'm up against one of the richest, most vindictive men in the world. (emphasis added)

As I've said before, Easterbrook must bear the costs of exercising his right to free speech. However, if this is true, then Eisner is enggaging in mass overkill.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh gets a response to his letter from ESPN. Go read it for a concrete example of the term "Orwellian."

posted by Dan on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM




Comments:

It's beyond overkill. It's a personal vendetta, and if Greg's sources are telling the truth, an indiscriminate and vicious one. For what amounts to a non-slight. I denounced Gregg's original comment as vociferously as anyone (partly because Pulp Fiction was a fine film, and partly because people who are not anti-Semitic can make anti-Semitic comments, and the former does not excuse the latter), but Eisner's response (again, if true) is stunningly power-mad.

posted by: sidereal on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I don't like what Easterbrook said (it was so out of left field compared with the rest of his post that I did sort of wonder where the hell it came from) but I do indeed think that Eisner is one of the richest, most vindictive men in the world. He is very feared at Disney (my wife and many of her friends worked at Disney for some time, sometimes referring to the company as Mauschwitz) and is reportedly hated by many of the Hollywood power elite, including of course Katzenberg who left to form Dreamworks with Spielberg and Geffen.

I would probably put him on the Media Axis of Evil along with Rupert Murdoch.
Regardless of what you may think of Easterbrook or his comments, it's scary that one man can have this kind of effective censorship power.

posted by: Ted on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Cry me a river, Gregg Easterbrook. He knows that Eisner is "one of the richest, most vindictive men in the world," but mouthes off about him while on Eisner's payroll? What does he expect a powerful vindictive man to do?

posted by: nameless on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



It's likely that an antisemite with a high-profile writing career would be careful to avoid mouthing his true feelings in public. It's more likely that Easterbrook fell into a kind of illogical conundrum without runnnig it by anybody else for a reality check. Probably any of these friends vouching for him could have told him to drop the "how could the Jews..." line of argument.

Having said all that, Easterblogg is a terrible name for a weblog. What's with the double-g?

This whole flap reminds me that one of the greatest pillars of freedom is obscurity.

And for all those bloggers with dreams of breaking into the major leagues of writing: be careful what you wish for.

posted by: xian on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Nameless,

Yup, that's clueless self-destructive behavior squared. I'd side with Easterbrook if he hadn't added the Jewish comment, though he is dumb as a rock, but only because of the media concentration angle. But he was dumber than dumb and said something arguably anti-Semitic.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Hopefully Eiser's overkill won't give anti-Semitism a good name.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



nameless: tough words from an anonymous poster.

xian: the double-g comes from "Gregg," but I agree it's a silly name. "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" was a much better name, alas.

Oh, and Dan, if the rumors Easterbrook heard about Eisner are correct, all I can say is "eeek." If Eisner really is out to get Easterbrook, he'll eventually have to attack The New Republic, and that would make things really interesting.

posted by: Matthew Stinson on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Why would a powerful, vindictive man want to continue paying an employee who says the following about him and his company:

"Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore . . .and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk. . .

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? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself."

Tell me Rupert Murdoch or any of the other powerful, vindictive men in the business wouldn't fire his ass.

posted by: nameless on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Jessica Simpson should look Easterbrook up if she ever needs another husband.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I had skimmed original Easterblogg movie review, and had missed the anti-Semitic line; I was sufficiently dismissive of his animus against Tarantino, whom I enjoy, that I didn't pay much attention to the rest. I only read the slight when I read about Easterbrook's appology, which I thought was one of the most direct and honest I have read in the blogosphere.

There is much to much real, hateful, and dangerous anti-Semitism (and other forms of racism) for us to waste time and energy condemning someone who has made a forthright appology for a single remark. ESPN is not acting like a leader in anti-racism. There are only two motives I can imagine; one is corporate cowardice, the other a personal vendetta.

The letter quoted here, if true, indicated the latter. Having read it, I went to Amazon and ordered a copy of Gregg's forthcoming book. I urge everyone who appreciates his writing to do the same.

posted by: marc on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



"mass overkill," Dan? It's vicious and despicable.

And all you people saying that Easterbrook should have known better are missing the point. We all already know that he wrote his post in a fit of rage and wasn't thinking. I've done that too. Most bloggers probably have. It doesn't mean that Easterbrook is stupid.

It really isn't about Easterbrook anymore -- it's about Eisner. What Eisner is doing is WRONG, pure and simple. Yes, he had the right to fire Easterbrook, but deleting all his columns makes me angry as a consumer. I have enjoyed his columns and linked to them frequently while writing my blog, and now they are gone. It isn't exactly the equivalent of the burning of the library of Alexandria, but I am personally upset as the loss of insight.

All of that is bad enough, but for Eisner to try to stop the publication of Easterbrook's book is outrageous.

Ironically, Eisner is proving that Easterbrook's low characterization of him is correct. Maybe he isn't money-grubbing (though I've seen plenty of Disney people say otherwise), but he certainly is not of high character.

posted by: Ryan Booth on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



What I love about the statements in the column are the praises for Easterbrook's alleged character. They can be summed up as 'pay no attention to the man's words - he has a good heart, because we say so'.

And it's really rich that Kaus is cited. This would be the same Kaus that parsed every work Krugman wrote, seeking lies, while not caring about the administration? The same Kaus who was OK with Schwarzenegger's chimney business?

posted by: Barry on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



That's right, Barry, and what matters anyway is not that Easterbrook is not an anti-Semite, but that he has not proven he is not an anti-Semite. Meanwhile it's perfectly OK for the head of a company that owns news organizations to retaliate against his company critics, as long as he's not chummy with Mickey Kaus.

posted by: Zathras on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Zathras,

It doesn't matter whether Easterbrook is anti-Semitic. What counts is that he made an arguably anti-Semitic comment in his official capacity for the New Republic. That's good enough to make a horrible public example of him. I just wish it would happen to others.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Just say no (thank you) to underlining in an html page.

posted by: anonymouse on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



If Eisner were Gary Bauer, people would be calling the vendetta against Easterbrook a "witch hunt." And they'd be right. It's still a witch hunt. Easterbrook said something stupid (only those of us who have never posted anything stupid on a bulletin board get to cast the first stone), and he's apologized. It's not kind of mistake that warrants losing his livelihood.

posted by: Debbie on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I would think it's more valuable to the overall discussion to not can Easterbrook and put him on the spot and make him explain himself (as has been done in some contexts).

Eisner making him disappear from Disney properties has the stink of censorship and pushes one to believe there's a bit of truth in the criticisms. Anytime someone makes criticisms disappear instead of disproving them leads me to believe the criticisms hit a bit too close to home and the recipient has no solid ground to disprove them on.

Whether this is the case or not I don't know, but using your power and money to make someone disappear is pathetic on an intellectual stage compared to debating the facts. I guess maybe that's a naive point of view in this age, but I'd kind of like to see them have a fistfight over it actually. This kind of power-flexing is pathetic.

posted by: TG on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



TG,

In case you haven't noticed, there is something really ugly going on in Europe and elsewhere. Easterbrook indulged in that, and it doesn't matter whether he did so through clueless stupidity or with malice. He deserves everything which is happening to him for saying that in his media business.

Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, includes the freedom to fail. Easterbrook failed. I think he'll make a fine insurance salesman.

And everyone else in his former line of work will have an additional incentive not to say some things. That is good.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Tell me Rupert Murdoch or any of the other powerful, vindictive men in the business wouldn't fire his ass.

I hereby tell you exactly that. Murdoch has a pretty good record of employing people who say nasty things about him and his politics, just not as editors of his newspapers.

posted by: dsquared on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



There is one certainty that has been exposed in the Easterbrook fiasco – that Eisner, by his actions in this matter, is as venal and morally bankrupt as Gregg Easterbrook *tried* to expose.

What Easterbrook is really guilty of here is bad writing in the extreme. He attempted to raise a racially and emotionally charged historical and social context as a backdrop for expressing further social outrage. He should have known better. He should have known how to express it better. In Easterbrook’s uncharacteristically klutzy delivery his written intent was completely lost. The end result - the discharge of the outrage he prompted fell back on him and from his ill-constructed prose we were left not with image of Eisner, but one of Easterbrook as a stereotypical caricature of an anti-Semite. A caricature all who know him attest false. An unintended victim of his own devices.

Easterbrook’s travails should be a reminder to all writers that the “pen” is a two-edged sword and like every weapon should be handled with respect and not brandished indiscriminately and not without careful forethought.

For me, there are two certain fall-outs of this event –

1) I’m definitely buying Easterbrook’s book
2) The trip to Disney World this spring is off

Small potatoes in the scheme of things but every little bit helps.

posted by: Jon on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Jon,

Alas, my visit to the Mouse took place earlier this month -- too late now to call it off.

posted by: Ryan Booth on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



He deserves everything which is happening to him for saying that in his media business.

Tom, that's sweet. Do you think Eisner deserves the reputation this is building for him as an ugly, vindictive, power-mad lunatic who will do anything to crush an ex-employee who was sacked for one injudicious incident?

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I don't know if Easterbrook's financial situation is that bad, actually.

All he has to do is have his book translated as quickly as possible into French and Arabic, with some choice blurbs on the front and back covers.

It'll be an international best-seller in no time.

posted by: Barry Meislin on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



So this is what a life of respectable liberal goo-gooness will get you when you run afoul of today's sensitivity standards. Does this count as being part of the legendary "liberal media"?

posted by: tc on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I can't belive the lack of perspective that some are displaying here.

There are evil vicious anti-Semites out there, those who want to kill me and my children just because we are Jews

There are an even greater number who don't care if we get killed.

Closer to home, threre are, passing in polite society, those who go out of their way to excuse the first two groups, and those who remain willfully ignorant and insensitive to any aid and comfort they may be giving to violent anti-Semites.

Here, we have someone, who by all accounts of those who know him well, is a well meaning, non-hateful person. He wrote something which was very ugly, for which he promptly appologized. He was very publicly shamed and embarrassed. I can't see how he deserves any more.

It does not do the cause of anti-defamation any good to apply the same anger and desire the same punishment for a good person who made a slip as for an evil person who persists in wrong doing.

posted by: marc on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Marc, good point.
I note that none here doubt that "money grubbing Jews" is a terrible, negative stereotype. Neither is the objective truth, or not, questioned. I suspect most of you believe it to be true, as does Gregg, but know enough not to ever utter it; unless by mistake.
[I'll tell you my belief if you'll tell me yours.]

Sort of like Charles Murray writing a book about how "blacks, on average, score lower in IQ tests".

In any case, Easterbrook was wrong to impute negative stuff to his personally named ultimate boss -- EVERY boss should fire such folk, unless there are really good (eg very profitable?) reasons not to.

Big reason to avoid media concentration, and too few ultimate bosses.

posted by: Tom Grey on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



It's not about anti-semitism. It's about powerful, vicious people getting away with murder. We elected one to the White House. How is Gregg Easterbrook different than Valerie Plame? How is Michael Eisner different from Jeff Skilling? Conservatives dream of a world where there are fewer checks and balances on people and then cry about the consequences. By the way, Easterbrook is as conservative as they come based on most everything I have seen him write. You reap what you sow.

posted by: elliottg on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



You know what really disturbs me about all this? Eisner's pettiness will soon be making the rounds as evidence of the international Zionist conspiracy. Look at how the jews destroy anyone who dares criticizes them!.

posted by: George on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Jesurgislac,

I already said:

"I hope Eisner's overkill doesn't give anti-Semitism a good name."

posted by: Tom Holsinge on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Well, George, you're probably right, but it's a real stretch to tie Eisner's egomania and general sleaziness to his religious heritage. That's not to say some people won't, only that most people won't.

I'm more concerned about the many people happy to accept the idea that companies owning news organizations can suppress critical commentary and reporting. Easterbrook's criticism had to do with Disney's sponsorship of one revolting movie, but if he can be subject to massive and uncommented-upon retaliation for that anyone critical of anything else Disney or Eisner personally does can be too. Push a few emotive buttons and you can get some people to buy into just about anything.

posted by: Zathras on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Somebody else:
"In any case, Easterbrook was wrong to impute negative stuff to his personally named ultimate boss -- EVERY boss should fire such folk, unless there are really good (eg very profitable?) reasons not to."

Tom Grey
"Big reason to avoid media concentration, and too few ultimate bosses."

I second that.

posted by: Barry on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Apparently, the e-mail that the Power Line posted and is linked above was NOT from Gregg Easterbrook. See changes above.

posted by: Dan Drezner on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Easterbrook would have a lot more defenders if he hadn't said anything about Jews. And he might not have been fired at all if he hadn't gone after Eisner personally. Asking the Disney Corporation if it wants to risk its family-friendly reputation is one thing. Personally attacking Disney's executives is another.

I repeat these too: "... clueless self-destructive behavior ..." "Think of it as evolution in action". "Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, includes the freedom to fail. Easterbrook failed."

It is a good thing to remind all those who make a living in the field of public discourse that it is a career risk to make arguably anti-Semitic expressions in their line of work.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



"Murdoch has a pretty good record of employing people who say nasty things about him and his politics, just not as editors of his newspapers."

Maybe if they make him more money than they cost him. Otherwise, not. Murdoch would have fired Easterbrook's ass and quick.

posted by: nameless on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Stop, Stop, STOP.

Mr. Zathrus - you are wrong on this account, completely.

Here is a typical problem with commentary. We discus the merits of something, yet can never really be sure what would (or has) really happened.

Conversely, here is also one of the strengths of the blogosphere - we can actually assess a given assumption factually, with the real - not assumed- evidence right in front of us.

To wit:

Mr Zathrus wrote (above) :
"I'm more concerned about the many people happy to accept the idea that companies owning news organizations can suppress critical commentary and reporting. Easterbrook's criticism had to do with Disney's sponsorship of one revolting movie, but if he can be subject to massive and uncommented-upon retaliation for that anyone critical of anything else Disney or Eisner personally does can be too. "

Completely false. Why? The "one revolting movie" line. And yet, that assumption, when proved false, completely collapses the structure of Easterbrook’s defenders.

Sadly, it has come to this : If you have not yet seen the movie, shut the hell up.

That is why those of us that have seen Kill Bill know that that the above argument is specious. As many others have already pointed out (most famously Prof Drezner in his opening remarks) it is obvious that E's detractors have seen Kill Bill, as well as QT's other work, and (most of)E's defenders have not.

Again, Go see the film, then opine. This is an easy one. E's quick dismissal of the film, (and why this one?)is nonsensical - and therefore his motives in attacking the Mogul/Bagel nexus are dubious, at best.

posted by: Arthur Wellesley on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



"Murdoch has a pretty good record of employing people who say nasty things about him and his politics, just not as editors of his newspapers."

Maybe if they make him more money than they cost him. Otherwise, not. Murdoch would have fired Easterbrook's ass and quick.


You're assuming Easterbrook didn't make ESPN any money. I wouldn't bet on that... TMQ was very popular.

posted by: Sharon on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Yes, Tom, but that didn't answer my question.

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



And everyone else in his former line of work will have an additional incentive not to say some things. That is good.

Why do you think it's good that everyone else who works (however remotely) for Eisner, will now have an additional incentive not to criticize Eisner?

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



I'm on the pro-Easterbrook side of the controversy, but isn't it worth noting that Easterbrook wasn't just "criticizing" Eisner, he was being exceptionally, and completely gratuitously, nasty and insulting when doing so. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if more writers who specialize in insults rather than dialogue would face some sort of penalty for it. (The bomb dropped on Easterbrook being excessive, of course).

Oddly, overall, Easterbrook doesn't really specialize in insults. He just makes it a embarrassing (IMO) sub-category of his writing. (His rightous crusades, in Virgina Postrel's words.)

posted by: Scott Wood on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Jesurgislac,

I detect a major element of sour grapes in your rewriting of my posts.

You, like many others, seem to be most unhappy at the loss of a feeling of privilege and immunity - that you feel those who write about public affairs or entertainment matters are entitled to complete protection from adverse consequences, and that bad things should happen only to the subjects of their comments.

Reality bites, don't it?

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Tom, interesting claim: where and how have I rewritten your posts?

As for "sour grapes"... Mmmm, no. I merely have a sense of justice: and a feeling that it's better for the media if journalists are allowed to criticize anyone, even their bosses - especially their bosses - with impunity. That their bosses feel that they should be immune from criticism by the journalists they employ does not surprise me. That you feel that any journalist who dares to criticize their boss should be punished for it so severely that they never do so again... well, there are plenty of people out there who think that the problem with the US media is that it's too free, and you're evidently one of them.

Easterbrook went too far: he apologized: he's lost his job. None of that strikes me as being unfair: when you criticize your boss in public, losing your job is a risk you take. What strikes me as scary is the purging of any reference to him from the ESPN website.

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]



Because I vaguely recall being in grad school with Gregg but didn't really know him, and because I'm Jewish, this controversy intrigued me enough to look up some of his writings. I conclude that he's probably a good guy with a lot of talent and passionate beliefs he likes to share. I also don't consider his remarks to be particularly anti-semitic. But are they clueless? Yes, on several levels. That comes from the same place that Rush's truly racist comment came from: the ego. Gregg has been successful. After a while it's easy for successful people to let their egos direct their actions, and saying what you really believe, or doing what you really want to do, even though it's obviously self-destructive is just the ego guiding you. You feel that you're past the point that something can bring you down. You underestimate your enemies and everyone else. You forget that people get offended easily, or you just don't care. You're teflon, untouchable. How did Bill Clinton let a relatively minor indulgence bring him down? His wildly out-of-control ego permitted him to underestimate his enemies. In Gregg's case, he already had writings all over the place. Why did he need a weblog? If his ESPN gig brought in half his income, why risk that on writing that represents work for no pay at all? Gregg's biggest mistake was ignoring a principle he and I learned back in grad school at Medill: every writer needs an editor. As many people here have pointed out, any of his friends could have told Gregg not to post that sentence about Jews and money. He should go back to his own personal religion and review the part about humility.

posted by: Rosanne on 10.20.03 at 06:17 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?