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. (He said it was part of Richards' act.)
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.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
LAT Hemorhagging Circulation
November 24, 2006 - 00:04 ET by daveinbocaThe way the LAT is becoming a far less lustrous mimic of the NYT is simply causing this ultra-left rag to lose circulation at more than 10% per annum. Let this pretentious wannabe continue its death spiral into oblivion. Or maybe David Geffen will buy it to make it an alternative newspaper without a shred of credibity.
Which the Richards' episode silence demonstrates this agitpreppie birdcage bottom is already becoming.
Did I or did I not say Rich
November 24, 2006 - 00:16 ET by Warner Todd HustonDid I or did I not say Richards would be given a pass by the MSM while they continue to beat up on Gibson?
We'll see "Kramer" beaten up when he makes a movie about Christians that Hollywood tries to destroy, even as it succeeds anyway despite them.
... in other words, NEVER.
No, you won't the MSM go af
November 24, 2006 - 01:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveNo, we won't see the MSM go after Richards until he becomes a devout/self-avowed Christian. That's the criteria for which the MSM hunts. The MSM is only interested in the story if they can show that someone that claims to follow Jesus Christ is fallible and therefore must be a hypocrite, so they conclude that being a Christian doesn't make anyone a better person. At the same time, those critical of Christians for reasons like that don't understand the very reason for Christianity in the first place...basically because humans are fallible, we need Christianity to help us become better people by trying to follow Christ to obtain his mercy for our personal shortcomings.
Richards might get a couple of blurbs, but it won't be anything compared to the attention given to Gibson.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Come on let's be fair - Richa
November 24, 2006 - 10:11 ET by truth_missileCome on let's be fair - Richards has only used the 'N' word and slurred epithets at Jews, it not like he has said *gasp* 'macaca' - now there's a reason to go full bore after him.
Double-standards...
November 24, 2006 - 15:46 ET by Sergeant ROCKObviously, the gangsta rap the two hecklers listened to on the way home from the club failed to sooth their hurt feelings. Standby for the lawsuit.
Standy by? It's already in
November 24, 2006 - 19:31 ET by awffp1890Standy by? It's already in the works:
http://www.mercuryne...
Good ol' Gloria Alred is alre
November 24, 2006 - 19:34 ET by bigtimerGood ol' Gloria Alred is already in the forefront of the mix....
Dontcha' just love it!
Unbelievable. Oh wait, it
November 25, 2006 - 00:49 ET by TexasOptimistUnbelievable.
Oh wait, it isn't unbelievable. But it is disgusting.
What law did Richards break, for goodness sake? He may have gone WAYYYY over the line, but come on.
The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.