|
|
|
Rick Sanchez
on Jewish Media Power
Edmund
Connelly
October 3, 2010
How Jewish is Hollywood?
That’s the question Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein asked two years ago
just before Christmas. In answer, he wrote:
When the studio
chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to
demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was
signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures
Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger
(Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner
Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves
(so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman
Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker
(mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would
have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan
with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
Funny guy, Joel
Stein. But his point is important. To sum up, he wrote sarcastically, “The Jews
are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high
positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their
incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of
fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to
be Jewish.”
Stein ended his
column by saying, “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our
accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between
‘The 700 Club’ and ‘Davey and Goliath’ on TV all day.”
Needless to say, Stein was not fired for writing this, nor
was he rebuked in the least. As we have seen time and again, there is a glaring
double standard about alluding to Jewish power in the media. Jews are free to
reference it, but woe unto the non-Jew who wades into those shark-infested
waters.
We now have a very high visibility
example of this double standard in action. As reported recently, “CNN anchor
Rick Sanchez abruptly left
the network Friday afternoon, just one day after making controversial comments
on a satellite radio program. ‘Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company,’
according to a statement from CNN. ‘We thank Rick for his years of service and
we wish him well.’”
Our
editor Kevin MacDonald immediately picked up on this and commented in a blog
called
Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power:
In
my post on Joe Sobran, I included
this quote from Joe:
“Jewish control of
the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and
paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but
never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews
are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll
destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce
ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.”
A current example that illustrates
exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for
saying the following about
Jews as victims:
“Very powerless
people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]…
Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a
lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot
like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who
are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah.” [sarcastically]
This kind of
media development is right up my alley, for my academic specialty is the impact
Jews have on American media, especially film. While the firing of Mr. Sanchez is
perhaps more high profile than previous instances, it is still part of an
all-too-typical pattern.
While I’ve long explored how
Jews have translated their own concerns into Hollywood and television fare, I’ve
had to devote a fair amount of time to proving first that Jews in fact have
immense power in American media. Among other things I’ve written toward this
goal are essays in the print journal
The Occidental Quarterly.
One such essay was
"The
Jews of Prime Time"
where I collected these examples of testimony of Jewish power:
Michael Medved,
Orthodox Jew and author of
Hollywood
vs. America: “It makes no sense at all to try to
deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture . . . Any
Martian monitoring American television . . . would view
Seinfeld, Friends, The Nanny, Northern Exposure, Mad about You, and other shows and be surprised to
learn that fewer than 1 in 40 Americans is Jewish.”
Brandies Professor Stephen J.
Whitfield: “From its origins, Hollywood has been stamped with a Jewish identity,
but nobody else was supposed to know about it. But somehow, no matter how
thorough the attempt to suppress or disguise it, Jewishness is going to bob to
the surface anyway.”
Author Stephen Schiff: “The
way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated
back to us every day.”
Neal Gabler,
author of
An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, wrote that “The American Dream—is a
Jewish invention.” As he documented: “The storefront theaters of the late teens
were transformed into the movie palaces of the twenties by Jewish exhibitors.
And when sound movies commandeered the industry, Hollywood was invaded by a
battalion of Jewish writers, mostly from the East. The most powerful talent
agencies were run by Jews. Jewish lawyers transacted most of the industry’s
business and Jewish doctors ministered to the industry’s sick. Above all, Jews
produced the movies.”
Because the double standard about revealing Jewish media power was so critical, I devoted a section to it called “Denial and Deception Regarding Jewish Power.”
Any number of Jewish observers
are willing to acknowledge the immense power of Jews in American media,
particularly in Hollywood film and television, although this view cannot yet be
described as conventional wisdom as far as the general public is concerned. But
for informed observers, identity always matters. In
Jews and the
Left,
Arthur Liebman observes that "one of the most important pieces of information a
researcher can gather on a social movement is the socioeconomic composition of
its membership.” The same can be said about the ethnic composition of those
openly commenting on Jewish power in the media: they are overwhelmingly Jews
themselves.
In contrast, Gentiles are
routinely discouraged from noticing, yet alone analyzing, this phenomenon which
is crucial in a democracy. As MacDonald notes, “Jewish groups have made any
critical discussion of Jewish issues off limits, and that's vitally important
because, yes, Jews are a very powerful group.”
It appears that a regime of
silence has been imposed, with ample rewards going to those Gentiles willing to
toe the party line and a graduated range of punishments being administered to
those unwilling to abide by the established rules of discourse. Prominent
examples have been cited by MacDonald et al., including the case of young
British journalist William Cash. He is the one who, with innocent candor, noted
the Hollywood presence of Michael Ovitz, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey
Katzenberg, Lew Wasserman, Sidney Sheinberg, Barry Diller, Gerald Levin, Herbert
Allen and others and wrote of the Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg “Dream Team”: "But
in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or 'talent
combo' in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul
founders of the early studios
—
and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants
—
they are Jewish."
I recall how one defender of
this secret, Vincent Brook, author of
Something Ain’t Kosher Here,
attempted to enforce this silence among non-Jews, applauding the fact that a
group critical of some TV portrayals “refrained from reviving the old canard of
Jewish media control.” Never mind that Brook’s book is all about Jewish
prominence in Hollywood.
Brook followed this censure of
Cash with a condemnation of Marlon Brando for his unsettling statements on
Larry King Live,
claiming that Jews run Hollywood and exploit stereotypes of minorities.
"Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews, but we never saw the kike
because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around."
Two comments about Brando’s
observation are in order. First, Brando could easily have added White Christians
to the list of exploited Hollywood stereotypes, but perhaps his greatest insight
was about the “kike.” Though an unfortunate choice of words, it did point to the
fact that we do not begin to see in Hollywood fare even a fraction of the real
behavior of real Jews.
The absence of
any narrative of Jewish power—political, financial, academic—forces us to
reconsider
David Zurawik's
concept of
“surplus visibility” and its application to American media.
Zurawik defined
the sociological concept of “surplus visibility” as “the feeling among minority
members and others that whatever members of that group say or do, it is too much
and, moreover, they are being too conspicuous about it.” Zurawik accepts the
conventional wisdom that membership in a “particular community of production”
will result in less stereotypical images of that community and images “more
representative of social reality.” The paradox he finds is that this “is not
what happened with Jews and television.”
In my view, the
Jewish “self-censorship” exhibited by important gatekeepers of TV programming
such as William Paley, David Sarnoff, and Brandon Tartikoff can best be
described as a form of deception in which Jewish producers of culture are highly
conscious of the perceived interests of the Jewish community. The question “Is
it good for the Jews?” is often uppermost in their thoughts. But almost without
exception, these producers of culture refuse to depict Jews as they really are.
Instead, the images are created in order to bolster the image of Jews among the
goyim.
And yet Jews
themselves often fail to see that the implications of the fact that images of
Jews presented in the media are sanitized for public consumption. Jewish film
critic Lester Friedman makes this error even though he acknowledges that Jews
intensely police images of themselves: “Unlike films about other American
minorities, movies with Jews were often scrutinized by one segment of that
minority group with the power to decide how the entire group would be presented
to society as a whole. The resulting images of Jews in films constitute a rich
and varied tapestry woven by several generations of moviemakers responding to
the world around them.”
Of course, this
rich and varied tapestry is nothing more than a creative public relations
campaign. In the old days, there were formal agreements between the Hollywood
studios to subject their films to scrutiny by Jewish organizations.
In
An Empire of Their Own, Neal Gabler describes how major
Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, and the
American Jewish Congress, developed a formal liaison with the studios by which
depictions of Jews would be subjected to censorship. One such group stated in
1947 that “Jewish organizations have a clear and rightful interest in making
sure that Hollywood films do not present Jews in such a way as to arouse
prejudice. . . . In some cases, such pictures should be taken out of production
entirely. In other cases, scripts should be edited carefully to eliminate
questionable passages. Everything should be done to eliminate unfortunate
stereotypes of the Jews.” Gabler describes several instances where scripts were
altered to provide more positive portrayals of Jews. The activities of this
group were not publicized, out of fear that it could result in “the charge that
[a] Jewish group is trying to censor the industry,” which, as Gabler notes, “was
exactly what it was trying to do” (p. 304).
We haven’t seen
realistic visual portrayals of Jewish power and behavior because Jews in control
know that far too many non-Jews imbibe their sense of reality from the visual
media. It would most certainly be bad for the Jews to show what is actually
going on. That is the whole reason for the taboo against Gentiles noting Jewish
media power. I suppose the reason some Jews get away with it in print is that
the audience for most print media is relatively small, so the risks are smaller,
too. Film and TV, on the other hand, broadcast information to millions, if not
tens of millions, at a time.
Here are some more examples of Jews
who have discussed Jewish power in the media, from my
“Understanding Hollywood”
series.
Film critic
Lester D. Friedman:
“Indeed, from the very
beginnings of the industry until the present, it is impossible to ignore the
influence of Jews on the movie business or to overlook the importance of a
Jewish consciousness in American films.”
Steven Silbiger, author of The Jewish
Phenomenon:
“The Jewish involvement in
motion pictures is more than a success story; it is the basis of the
disproportionate influence that Jews have had in shaping American popular
culture.”
Silbiger again:
“In addition to the corporate chieftains, a huge
number of Jewish people participate in the entertainment industry. It has not
been part of a grand scheme, but when an ethnic group becomes as heavily
involved, and as successful, in a particular industry as Jewish people have been
in movies, the group’s influence, connections and power produce a vast ripple
effect, and other Jewish actors, writers, editors, technicians, directors, and
producers follow in their footsteps.”
David Desser and
Lester D. Friedman:
“Regardless of a Jewish
author’s past or present involvement with organized religion, current religious
or cultural practices, and personal sense of group attachment or isolation, the
underlying critical assumption is that the work of a Jewish writer must either
overtly or covertly reflect a Jewish sensibility.”
In their book
Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People,
Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson confirm Jewish dominance in Hollywood, noting that
of the ten major studios under discussion, nine were created by Jews (Walt
Disney was a Gentile), and as of 2006 all ten studios were run by Jews. As they
concluded: “Yes, we do control the movie studios. All Jews please report to the
World Conspiracy Headquarters immediately (don’t forget to bring your pass
code).” Playwright David Mamet confirmed this by adding, “For those who have not
been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has
constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and
studio heads.”
(Incidentally,
Fogel and Wolfson also did the same for American TV networks, finding a
leadership figure of seventy-five percent. Discussing print media, they found
that seven of ten major publications are run by Jews. “Conclusion: Jews have
lots of opinions that they love to write about and charge you money to read!
Cool.”)
Clearly, Jews are
given the freedom to write about Jewish power if they like. But what would
happen if someone who was only half-Jewish were to do so?
Olivers Stone
is a case in point. The
Wall Street Journal
reported this past summer that Stone said that “public opinion was focused on
the Holocaust because of ‘Jewish domination of the media.’” Stone also said that
the Jews “stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington.
Israel has f—– up United States foreign policy for years.”
Like so many
others before him, Stone groveled: “In trying to make a broader historical point
about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made
a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret.
Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”
I think that
qualifies perfectly as an example of Sobran’s paradox on Jewish power and how
(not) to refer to it. Perhaps because he’s got one foot in the Tribe’s tent,
however, Stone’s apology was quickly accepted. Said ADL National Director
Abraham Foxman. “I believe he now understands the issues and where he was wrong,
and this puts an end to the matter."
Goyim who violate this rule,
though, fair worse. Writing about the recent Rick Sanchez affair, Steve Sailer
reminds us
how
Gregg Easterbrook
was punished for his
informational transgression. Recall back in 2003 how Easterbrook had written:
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.
Apologies or
not,
Disney, the parent of ESPN, fired Easterbrook.
In his blog,
MacDonald summed up current unspoken rules nicely:
So the scenario is exactly as
Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but
public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless
victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the
other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense
power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention
the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and
throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless
victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.
Powerless
victims with the power to destroy their enemies. And that’s exactly what
happened.
As emphasized here, however, not everyone who calls attention to Jewish media power is fired or forced to grovel. Jews who proudly call attention to Jewish media power get a free pass. And that fact is yet another indication of the enormity of Jewish power in America.
Edmund Connelly
(email him) is a freelance
writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for
The Occidental
Quarterly.
