Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What Rick Sanchez said about CNN and Jews

The Web is burning up with this comment that CNN's Rick Sanchez made on a radio show, which seems like he's saying CNN and the networks are run by Jews:

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.

If Sanchez meant that everybody who runs the networks is a lot like Stewart in that they're Jewish, that's obviously very, very bad, and portends serious trouble for him. I wonder, though, if that's what he really meant. Here's the full context of what Sanchez said about Stewart -- most of his complaint is directed at white liberals who, Sanchez complains, don't understand minorities despite their best intentions:

SANCHEZ: He is one of the left wing elite northeast establishment guys who says, I like black people and Mexicans as long as they're, "here, let me tap you on the head. Way to go, Ricky, you're doing a good job." But as soon as you do or say something or develop any kind of character, they push you down. Just like the administrator who said he didn't want me to be an anchor, he wanted me to be a reporter, because when he looks at me he thinks of other Hispanic reporters like John Quinones.

QUESTIONER: Do you think that's a conscious thing, that Stewart or left wing liberals or whatever do?

SANCHEZ: No, I don't.

QUESTIONER: Because he's on the same side as you on immigration.

SANCHEZ: I don't think it's a conscious thing. I just think it's important that people who are not minorities understand that those of us who are -- and very few of us will say the things that I just said -- are actually more complex than they think we are.

QUESTIONER: Stewart's a minority as much as you are. He's Jewish.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Yeah. Very powerless people. Please. What are you, kidding?

QUESTIONER: You're telling me that --

SANCHEZ: 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.

It's not quite clear what Sanchez means here. Again: If he was referring derisively to the people who run all the networks as Jewish, that's obviously awful. But reading the full context, it seems at least possible that when he referred to Stewart and the people at the networks he was referring not to Jews, but to snooty white liberal elites who don't understand minorities. After all, that's who he'd been talking about during the bulk of the whole exchange.

The problem for Sanchez is that even if that were what he meant, he said it just before his sneering dismissal of the idea that Jews are an oppressed minority. So even if he did mean to say what I suggested above, it may be tough for him to get his clarification taken seriously.

On the other hand, Sanchez very well could have meant his comments in the way that the worst possible interpretation suggests.

UPDATE, 3:04 p.m.: Let me try to be a bit clearer. The charitable interpretation of what he said -- and I mean charitable -- is that Sanchez's mind was on the white liberals he'd been ranting about. In the first half of the offending quote he was referring to them:

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.



Then, in the second half, he addressed what his questioner had said about Jews:

And to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority? Yeah.



The problem is that even if he meant these comments in the less offensive way, he used the word "they" in that second half before saying "the people in this country who are Jewish." This will be impossible for him to clarify. And, again, he very well have meant the comments in the worst way.

UPDATE, 6:23 p.m.: CNN fires Sanchez in a terse, two-sentence statement.

By Greg Sargent  | October 1, 2010; 2:16 PM ET
Categories:  Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will tomorrow's One Nation rally show enthusiasm gap closing? Will media care?
Next: Sharron Angle's M.O.: I never said what I plainly said!

Comments

It sounds like Sanchez was just enjoying a little Hippie Punching, Greg. It's sort of the national pastime now.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 1, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

While I agree with your reading that there's a little wiggle room (very little), I'm still reading it as "they're all Jewish." After all, everyone knows that the Jews run Hollywood as well as the media, right?
:->

Posted by: Michigoose | October 1, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Its pretty straight forward Greg. Rick Sanchez's response came in direct response to the question about Jewish people also being a minority just like he is. I am shocked and surprised that he said it but there really isnt any other way to take what he said other than that he was referring to Jewish people running the networks. And that their standing as such precludes them from being seen as an oppressed minority like him

It is what it is

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | October 1, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

sg and michigoose -- I get that. but that could be just because he screwed up by using the word "they" at the wrong time. see what I mean?

and that's pretty funny, wbgonne. I've been stunned at how few people are familiar with that term.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Heh. My timing is great :-)

Let me repost: Anybody here thinking of making it to the Stewart-Colbert rallies at the end of the month?

Posted by: jzap | October 1, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sanchez' comments were entirely unambiguous. He believes that his group is an oppressed minority, and Jews are not, because they have much more power, especially in the media.

Why are you trying to interpret his very specific comments about Jews as referring to liberal elites generally? It's obviously disingenuous on your part, but I am curious as to your motivation.

Posted by: Itzajob | October 1, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent:

What's your definition of "trolling"?

As I just said on the prior thread, I plan on staying here until the Good Lord takes me home, unless you ask me to leave. For the record, however, I've never stated that it's my goal to destroy this blog, but rather I take the "Devil's Advocate" position to test the libs arguments -- I am not the one who fired Weigel or instituted a new comment system at The Fix -- I was just puffing about that before. In fact, I just had an enjoyable (and refreshingly honest) dialog with "scat" about the teachings of the Catholic Church yesterday.

I'm out the rest of today, anyway, so play nice everyone.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: I'm with you - he was referring to snooty white liberal elites. No problem with that part...

Then he goes on to really put his foot in his mouth - "his sneering dismissal of the idea that Jews are an oppressed minority." There's no excuse for that.

So - what about the trolls?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 1, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Meh. Misplaced "they"? I still think he meant it the way most people are reading it. You're just a softie, Greg! :-)

Posted by: Michigoose | October 1, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

thanks, sbj! we're in a, um, minority here though.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Given the context, I don't think there is any reasonable doubt what Mr. Sanchez meant. Antisemitism has been becoming mainstream in much of Europe. It will be interesting to find out if CNN is also willing to treat it as acceptable.

Posted by: Burgundy | October 1, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Burgundy -- I assume he will be fired, because whatever he meant, any clarification will be impossible.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Sanchez is toast, probably today. He was about 10 IQ points above the average CNN anchor but that only got him to 90 anyhow.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 1, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm a usually happy-go-lucky Jew. I don't spend my time worrying about pogroms or anti-Semites.
I've read Sanchez's comments in short and longer context. The longer context, to my mind, makes his comments worse.
Sanchez is a bigot, but bigots must enjoy free speech as much as decent people do.
The big question in my mind is what will and what should CNN do about its in-house hater.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | October 1, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, above:

"I've never stated that it's my goal to destroy this blog . . ."

JakeD, yesterday:

I took down Weigel, and changed Cillizza's comments to nothing more than a Twitter feed, so it can't hurt to try it again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:31 AM |
+++++++++++++++++

O.K., JakeD didn't use the word "destroy." Otherwise, he is being quite clear.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Greg -- No, it's not trolls that have kept my appearances here rare lately. I've been in hiding for other reasons!

Sorry to hear that trollage has become a problem again.

What irritates me most about the trollage is NOT reading the initial inflammatory comment -- working the scroll wheel is a small price to pay for maintaining First Amendment freedoms -- it's seeing all those other commenters get suckered into making replies.

Let me observe that threaded comments make it easier to skip over both the initial hand grenade and the collateral-damage posts it sets off. (Though threaded comments got a mixed reception at WRG, I kinda think people were starting to appreciate it a bit more when you moved us from WRG to WaPo.)


Posted by: jzap | October 1, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Ever since HLN with Glen Beck CNN has pushed aside actual reporting and gone Fox News-lite.

It's all personalities and opinions, and very little original reporting. CNN at its peak, was believable, trustworthy, insightful, and provided world news.

Now it is Crossfire but with more and louder faces screaming at me on my teevee. Clearly it noticed it was losing viewers/marketshare/advertising revenue to the blogs (left) and Fox (right), so it decided to be Fox-lite, rather than positioning itself as neutral and serious.

I haven't watched CNN for more than 2 or 3 minutes at a time in years.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | October 1, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

"I assume he will be fired..."

Recall that CNN defended hiring Erick Erickson, despite the fact that he's said things that could be called worse than this.

Should be amusing if Erickson is left alone but Sanchez gets shown the door. I wonder what the difference would be...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 1, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"(Though threaded comments got a mixed reception at WRG, I kinda think people were starting to appreciate it a bit more when you moved us from WRG to WaPo.)"

Agreed. Threaded comments were unnecessary before and the linear format is very nice when it works well but once things go haywire the linear threads are hard to take.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 1, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

jzap's right; I've *always* liked threaded comments better, and they were starting to be accepted right before you moved to this platform. Heck, even CTVoter got to like them, and she was vociferous in her dislike even before you tried them.

Although can you imagine how long the threaded comments would get with STRF cutting and pasting into them???

Posted by: Michigoose | October 1, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

As I read the comments above, Rick Sanchez is saying that the Jewish minority is now integrated into mainstream U.S. culture and, consequently, it is no longer oppressed here in the same way that people with black or brown skin are.

I think that he's correct. I'm a non-Jewish, white-skinned American who grew up in the suburban Northeastern US. When I meet people who are Jewish Americans I see people who are a lot like me; I don't believe that I experience any irrational prejudices toward them. When I meet people with black or brown skin, however, I still see people who are different, and I fear that I do experience irrational prejudices, though I try to overcome them.

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 1, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

First of all, dude called Jon Stewart a bigot. Really? Like Bull Connor? You're putting Jon Stewart, of all people, in with George Wallace and whoever?

Second, Rick Sanchez killed a guy named Jeffrey Smuzinick in a hit-and-run in 1990. No jail time, and no charges--and Rick is complaining that he, as a Cuban-American, is more of a persecuted minority? And calling Jon Stewart a bigot?

If Sanchez didn't mean it, and simply misspoke, he has a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease. Like, terminal.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

It annoys me when:

(i) rightwingers complain about banning - try posting as a non-insane rightwinger on any rightwing site (redstate/hotair/freepr/etc.) Anything other than "Palin is the greatest" is immediate banning.

(ii) people call banning anti-first amendment freedoms (please read the constitution) - hint: private vs. public.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | October 1, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

All, on the trollage:

I beg you for patience. I am not in a position to make these decisions. The higher ups are. So I can refer your complaints to them, and they make up their minds.

They are reluctant to ban anyone for reasons that I understand but don't always agree with.

I cannot take banning action myself, and any banning takes time. So all I can do is ask you, for the time being, to skip over the trollage rather than bailing.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

You all HATED the threaded comments when I delivered them for ya! :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

You should just tell us to suck it up and stop whining. That's ALWAYS successful with the customer base.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 1, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Can you tell us who these "higher ups" are?

One element here seems to be the hostility on the blog - they are NOT trying to "tone down" the hostility - they are ramping it up.


Another point - there seems to be a search for some "rule" that has been broken. Well - if they don't know the rule, then what can one say?


If there is a "rule" to be enforced - it should be spelled out, and it should apply to everyone.


We seem to have two sets of rules - one set is everything goes if you like the content - the other set is - we have to say this person is doing something wrong if we don't like the content.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I assume the model for analysis for your higher-ups is "do we get more or less traffic when we allow the trolls to remain"? The cost-benefit analysis is how many page-views are lost by people getting annoyed and taking off, vs. how many page-views do trolls provide (both the trolls themselves, and those who like to battle them).

Which puts us in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, tons of us very much like your writing and your blog and want it to continue and thrive and know that our leaving may possibly threaten your future success here. But on the other hand, if we do not leave, there is likely no incentive for the higher-ups to do something about the trolls.

My thinking is that many of us will continue to avoid the comments section until the trolls are gone.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | October 1, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I listened to a clip of what Sanchez said. He goes on to say that in this day and age, Jews aren't discriminated against in hiring. Combine that with their apparent stranglehold on the media, and we have a great explanation for why so many Jews have been nominated for President, and elected!

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

rainforest: here are the rules:

You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that:
infringes upon or violates the copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of any person
is libelous or defamatory
is obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit
violates a person's right to privacy
violates any local, state, national, or international law
contains or advocates illegal or violent acts
degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification
is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass
contains advertising or solicitation of any kind
misrepresents your identity or affiliation
impersonates others


much of the trollage here seems clearly "intended to harass." for that, we reserve the right to ban. that decision is made by editors, not by me.

Ajax, I understand why you might think that, but it isn't really the case...the editors are very serious about balancing the need to maintain the quality of the discourse with a reluctance to ban people.

...and nice one, wbgonne. I wonder how many people will get it....

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I think Sanchez harbors a fair amount of bigotry. I also think Jon Stewart's jabs at him really got under his skin. What surprised me is that he wasn't able to keep his big, fat, flapping mouth shut about it. Wouldn't he know there's no way out now? Not that I think there should be an easy way out; since he decided to expose his prejudice, I think he should apologize (which he probably will, to no avail, no matter how sincere), then be demoted, at the very least.

What troubles me most about this is that when politicians expose their bigotry (against Muslims, Hollywood--read "Jews"-- immigrants, etc.), they're often enthusiastically returned to office.

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 1, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg

So the cursing that went on last night was OK


The efforts to start fights on the blog are OK

The hostile comments and the harassment is OK


All that is OK ???


So what exactly is NOT OK in the midst of all that hostile behavior???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

And here I'd thought wbgonne had gone all Republican on us with that thought! :-)

Posted by: Michigoose | October 1, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I think the interviewer's comparison of the lot of Hispanics vs Jews in the USA as being comparable was ridiculous. Anyone want to defend that idea?

Sanchez didn't do a very good job of knocking it down, though, clearly.

Posted by: ANDYO1 | October 1, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

A basic lesson in the 1st Amendment:

Greg is not the Government, The WaPo is not the Government.

The 1st Amendment is GOVERMENT interference with free speech and the free press.

Banning trolls does not violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 1, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Greg


Im sorry - but I haven't intended to harass anyone.


Quite the contrary - I have been the one under constant harassment.

This is riduculous - they are constantly coming after me because of WHAT I say.


Please post the names of the people in charge - so I can state my case.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I generally prefer threaded comments for discussion forums myself. It's the best way I know to organize a serious back-and-forth discussion between multiple grown-up adult people. But they tend not to work all that well for unmoderated political fora due to the troll factor.

The flat file format seems to cut way down on gratuitous flaming just because it ~is~ more difficult to direct your replies at specific comments/individual. A shout out down-thread lacks the immediacy of a threaded comment.

Posted by: CalD | October 1, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

1) Greg, I LOVED the threaded comments!

2) Speaking as a Jewish American, Jews are definitely NOT an oppressed minority. But I think that Mr. Sanchez unleashed a certain bitterness or animosity towards Jews that is sometimes present or underlying in some communities, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But what I think what is missing from this dialog is the bigger picture. And that is that since the advent of Fox News in the mid-90s, news media and journalism have obviously taken a turn toward opinion and away from hard news. While that means more Rachel Maddows and Greg Sargents, it also means more Bill O'Reilly's and Rick Sanchez's. That is to say that it is not really about the partisanship that concerns me, it is the idea of giving a major media platform to someone whose own personal opinions may be offensive, or who may be so indifferent or insensitive to certain issues that they might find themselves getting into trouble with the viewing audience.

In fact, one might even argue that this episode is emblematic of CNN's downfall from trusted hard news source to opinionated Fox Lite. And we've all watched as their ratings have plummeted forthwith.

Our media is broken. Our political system is broken. Our education system is broken. Our energy system is broken. Our transportation system is broken.

Until we -- media consumers, media channels, politicians, pundits, etc -- grow up as a nation and confront these issues as intellectually honest adults, our superpower status will continue to degrade.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 1, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Let's be serious here

12BarBlues has come on here practically every day - to harass me.


She has been stirring up all the discontent here as well.

She has brought other people onto this blog to make hostile comments.

Yea - if anything, I have tried to tone down this behavior -

Greg - Im sorry the harassment is coming from the left - they do not like the content.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it. What did Rick Sanchez say that was so wrong? That Jews control the media, banks, government and every other power lever in the world? That they have conspired to work against everything that Americans hold dear? Does anyone honestly believe that's not the case? Sanchez's only error was not being more clear in what he thought about Jews.

Posted by: salanatoli | October 1, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "Ajax, I understand why you might think that, but it isn't really the case...the editors are very serious about balancing the need to maintain the quality of the discourse with a reluctance to ban people."

Sorry to disagree, Greg, but there is absolutely NO evidence to support your contention that the editors are looking to maintain any quality discourse ANYWHERE ON ANY WAPO opinion board. Go check around. Most of them are worse than here, and have been for years already. Your comments section has been overrun for MANY WEEKS now.

I think Ajax hit a nail squarely. I know I (and others I know) have thought the same thing for a long time now. It's all about traffic. I don't see any reason or evidence to think otherwise.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 1, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Jews are definitely NOT an oppressed minority."

Aren't Jews second only to blacks in being the victims of hate crimes?

@Greg: Please have the post by salanatoli deleted.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 1, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite get it. 43 of 44 Presidents have been Protestant The current Congress is 55% Protestant which is the lowest total ever. There has never been anything BUT a Protestant controlled Presidency and Congress in the whole history of this country. Would Sanchez be in trouble if he said THAT?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 1, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1,
Thanks for your comment about the 1st Amendment. Ha! That's the kind of comment I'll miss if you decide to stay away (which I'd certainly understand), not to mention the interesting links you often provided.

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 1, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Fox News President: Roger Ailes
Senior VP: Michael Clemente
Senior Political Analyst: Brit Hume
ABC TV President: Anne Sweeney
ABC News President: David Westin (outgoing)
ABC Political Director: Amy Walter
CBS News President: Sean McManus
CBS Executive VP: Paul Friedman
CBS VP and Washington Political Bureau Chief: Christopher Isham
CNN News President: Ken Jautz
CNN SVP: Bart Feder
CNN Political Director: Sam Feist
NBC News President: Steve Capus
MSNBC News President: Phil Griffin
NBC Political Director: Chuck Todd
Only one of the (15) individuals above is a Jewish person.

Posted by: wmarcusson | October 1, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Rick Sanchez is a joke and lacked credibility long before this latest incident. Sanchez has a long history of rudeness, offensive behavior and arrogance. He's nothing more than a newsreader and an untalented one at that. I do hope CNN will take this long overdue opportunity to take him off the air.

Posted by: shamrock88 | October 1, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "You all HATED the threaded comments when I delivered them for ya! :)"

Heh. The plug was pulled on that experiment a bit prematurely. Threaded comments were up and running at WRG for, what, three weeks or so before moving to WaPo and losing that functionality?

I really do think people were beginning to warm up to it when the WaPo switch was made.

But I can see why memories of the complaints might be stronger than memories of the kudos. It works that way with me, too.

BTW -- A previous commenter suggested that comments have the commenter's name at the top, not the bottom. That sounds sensible to me.


Posted by: jzap | October 1, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"And to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority?"

I find it difficult to misread that in any way that doesn't imply that the "Yeah" after it is sarcastic. So does Mr. Sargent. Yet he attempts to rationalize it.

"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."

Now this I could re-interpret as not meaning "short Jewish boys from NJ" or "people whose acting career is relegated to basic cable." But if he's talking "influential people" then he's being redundant.

So is he whining that most of the people who run organizations are the children of two fairly-successful parents? At its best, this is "dog bites man." And the other interpretations are more revealing of Sanchez--who clearly believes he is revealing something--than they are supportive of a positive interpretation of his remarks.

Posted by: klhoughton | October 1, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Greg

"Intending to discuss an issue" is different from "intending to harass"


I'm sorry but the conduct of several of your "regulars" has been nothing less than "intending to harass"


This entire situation is based on CONTENT - those who ask for several people to be banned - they are ALL conservatives.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The following question is asked with all due sincerity and good faith, devoid of any predatory, hateful, or otherwise nefarious intent to intimidate or harass:

What is the Washington Post's definition of trolling, and how is that different from all of the "OT" posts by Ethan2010, mikefromArlington, 12BarBlues and Liam-Still?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 1, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, I appreciate the sentiment, but American Jews on the whole are simply not oppressed. Not any longer. In recent history, say the early-to-mid 20th century, yes. But not today. And obviously it doesn't come anywhere close to the documented oppression of Jews throughout history.

"@Greg: Please have the post by salanatoli deleted. "

I second that. That post was clearly anti-Semitic and far more insulting, imho, than Mr. Sanchez's comments.

For anyone interested, there was a GREAT program on PBS called 'The Jewish Americans' which traced Jewish history in America from the first colonists to the present day. Absolutely brilliant documentary. Definitely worth watching whether you're Jewish or not. Do yourselves a favor, learn some American history you probably never knew, and check it out:

http://www.pbs.org/jewishamericans/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 1, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote:

"Ajax, I understand why you might think that, but it isn't really the case...the editors are very serious about balancing the need to maintain the quality of the discourse with a reluctance to ban people."

Greg, I think you should worry more about how 5 or 6 posters are turning your comments section into a private instant messaging service. The topper was the day when about 4 posters went on all day about whether or not someone from Reid's camp had touched someone from Angle's camp (or was it the other way around) The word inane was inadequate to describe it. I don't post here very often anymore because the discourse is more like a personal conversation rather than an expression of viewpoints. STRF is my polar opposite but at least he is not navel gazing in his outlook.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 1, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin (from morning thread)
"From the report: "The OHCHR report confirms accounts from passengers on the Mavi Marmara that defenders subdued roughly ten Israeli commandos, took their weapons from them and threw them in the sea, except for one weapon hidden as evidence. The Israeli soldiers were briefly sequestered below and some were treated for wounds before being released by the defenders."

How, exactly, do peace activists subdue roughly ten Israeli frackin' commandos?

Not saying the Israeli military was not acting improperly, but something about that story ain't right."

And your response, had you been there and seen six individuals executed?

Note "subdued", not strangled or knifed. Note weapons thrown into sea rather than turned on the Israeli commandos.

And, of course, note the destruction by the Israeli's of all recordings of the attack.

You use the phrase to describe the Israeli commandos as "acting improperly". Like rape as an instance of exuberant flirting?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Here is a good rule for all cable news jockeys to live by: don't mess with John Stewart. Just ask Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews.

Posted by: BAS7759 | October 1, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Greg

The major way people see the rules - is that the posters look and see WHAT is enforced.


If they see other posters engaging in a certain kind of behavior, then it is reasonable to believe that behavior is within the rules.


If there hasn't been any enforcement - there hasn't been any enforcement - and people don't know what the rules are.

To start now - AND TRY TO CREATE ONE RULE AGAINST "TROLLAGE" - AND THEN try to make it fit somewhere just isn't right


I think it is ex poste facto.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

54465446,

Personally, I see no problem with pointing out that most Presidents -- and a majority of Congress -- self-identify as "Protestant."

I do have a question about referring to Protestant "control" of the Presidency and Congress. "Protestantism" is a religious construct, it covers many different denominations and the full range of American political views. Even within a denomination there is a wide range of political views. United Methodism, for example, includes George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Clinton. It is likely that a majority in Congress have brown eyes, but brown eyes don't "control" Congress and neither does Protestantism.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg


The minute you try to define "trollage" you will have a problem : MOST of your regulars will fall under that definition.


Ethan has been driving everyone nuts


Mike from Arlington posts all the time


Liam started multiple fights the other night


I could go right down the list.....

And 12BarBlues has been stirring up all this trouble of late ---

Things were relatively quiet around here before she started with her venom every day.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

wmarcusson wrote:

"Only one of the (15) individuals above is a Jewish person"

Just curious as to how you know. Are you name trolling? LOL

Posted by: 54465446 | October 1, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm reading it as thus:

The Jews are not an oppressed minority because they have a lot of power, running the media and all.

Jon Stewart is one of them.

Liberal eastern elitists don't get it.

A lot of liberal eastern elitists are Jews.

This is specifically about the MSM, the beyond MSM, their "framing" of immigration issues and minority rights or whatever.

And Rick Sanchez's personal bitterness and chip on his shoulder over how he's been treated as a Hispanic American. In the media. By his bosses. Who are mostly liberal eastern elitist Jews.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 1, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 wrote:

"Congress have brown eyes, but brown eyes don't "control" Congress and neither does Protestantism."

You are correct in pointing out that there are doctrinal differences, however they are minor in comparison to their similarities and agreeements. While I believe that things are changing, it is strictly a fantasy to say that national elective office in this country has not been limited to Protestants for the entire history of the nation.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 1, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

My take on Sanchez echoes Ethan's. CNN illustrates how far the TV-news branch of the entertainment industry has declined. Sanchez is a pitiful attempt at being a TV-news entertainer. There's a touch of Don Rickles in his mix, too.

Dammit, Ted Turner! Sure wish you'd sold CNN to somebody else!

Posted by: jzap | October 1, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

All, check out Sharron Angle's latest:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angles_most_demostrabl.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 1, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

STR's last 3 or 4 posts are exactly what we're talking about. They are repetitious and show no insight into the way threads get filled with lots of posts that just don't say anything or, worse, add unhinged comments way off the subject.

Is my judgment subjective? Yes. I don't agree with STR's politics or positions, but that's NOT what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to long posts that have little (IMO) content and tend to say the same thing over and over.

I'll tell you what would help. If you (STR and others) post something that makes an argument, and that is not responded to by anyone, then move on. DON'T keep posting it over and over. The marketplace of ideas has judged it to be unworthy of the conversation. This happens to me all the time and I just re-engage with some other idea or what someone has said about something else.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 1, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I'm really not getting a response from you.


The hostility has been coming from the left - AIMED AT THE CONSERVATIVES


The only impartial way to interprete that is the "regulars" are harassing other people.


- Last night there was cursing

- 12Barblues has been stirring up this trouble


- and the "intend to harass" has been there from the left.


Let's be serious - The problem is they don't like the opposing views - not anything else.


And their behavior has been pretty poor - if you are going to start banning - at least 7 of the others should go first.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

STRF says,

"Ethan has been driving everyone nuts
."

Ethan isn't driving me nuts. Therefore, this statement is false.

"Mike from Arlington posts all the time"

Mike from Arlington hasn't posted on this thread. Therefore, this statement is false.


"Liam started multiple fights the other night"

Fights? Really? Did you witness these fights? Did you call the police?

Hyperbole much?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

STRF

I was actually defending you in my earlier post. Way to make me feel like an idiot!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 1, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "And your response, had you been there and seen six individuals executed?"

That's a very bad thing, but at least it's completely explicable as to how it happens--Israeli commandos are, one would expect, entirely capable of executing peace activists. Of course, that's a bad thing, but it's not hard to imagine how that could happen, in a practical sense.

How a group of peace activists could functionally subdue Israeli commandos . . . now, that still begs explanation. I'm not saying there isn't a perfectly good explanation, but I just haven't seen it yet.

"You use the phrase to describe the Israeli commandos as 'acting improperly'. Like rape as an instance of exuberant flirting?"

Replace "acting improperly" with "being murderously evil", as I was not (as I think was pretty clear) assigning any kind of value judgment regarding what the Israeli commandos did or did not do. If the reportage and investigation is accurate, it looks pretty heinous.

But it still doesn't answer a perfectly reasonable question, which is how do "peace activists" and other innocents abroad subdue Israeli commandos with nothing but blankets and clean water?

It's not a trick question.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

So I read that the rules are:

You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that:
infringes upon or violates the copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of any person
is libelous or defamatory
is obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit
violates a person's right to privacy
violates any local, state, national, or international law
contains or advocates illegal or violent acts
degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification
is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass
contains advertising or solicitation of any kind
misrepresents your identity or affiliation
impersonates others

Hmmm, Hateful... Liberals calling the entire Tea Party movement isnt hateful?

SOunds like a double-standard to me.

So who here believes that the Tea Party movement is a racist and bigoted movement? Speak up

Posted by: Magox | October 1, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Magox

You are 100% right


Many liberals have posted comments about the Tea Party which have to be considered hateful.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

What is hardest to understand about Rick Sanchez is that he moved from Cuba. I mean why would this guy flee communism? He is a bigger (and dumber) lefty than most of you idiot commenters here.

Posted by: RecriminyCricket | October 1, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent thinks Sanchez' comments would be less offensive if they were said about "white liberal elites" than about "Jews". Maybe Sanchez could use that to take the pressure off him. Hoistings away!

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | October 1, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

@STRF,

The reason you hate me so much is because I tell the folks here what you were like on the Fix.

And you were exactly the same on the Fix. All the spamming, duplication, CAPSLOCK, carriage returns...posts that fill up 70% of the blog lines. How do I know that? Because one poster kept track of the lines posted and you had about 70% of them.

And you use the same excuses:

I don't know the rules,
no one follows the rules,
the liberals are against me,
others are worse than me,
it's a violation of my civil rights.

But your reputation preceeds you. The Fix is a WaPo blog and so is Plumline. So perhaps the "higher ups" are the same folks, and perhaps they might just remember you and your years of harrassing Fix posters and Chris Cillizza.

Anyone who doubts this should get on the Fix archive and look for the poster 37th&OStreet, who is STRF.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 1, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

That is actually quite amusing, considering that I stopped reading the Fix because of 37th&OStreet. It makes perfect sense that STRF is the same guy, causing the same damage to a WaPo blog, just like JakeD and JakeD2.

Well, I guess that clinches it. I will not be reading comments here or posting here again unless/until people like Recriminycricket and STRF and JakeD2 and salanatoli and the rest of the hate-filled trolls are gone.

Mr. Sergeant, you do excellent work, and we are grateful to you for it.

See you on the flip side.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | October 1, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

54465446,

I agree with you completely about the fact that Protestants have dominated elective office (though there are regional exceptions). I see that as a problem to the extent it creates a de facto "religious test" for office, but I'm still not seeing how it limits political viewpoints.

I live in a liberal district. Our Representative was raised Protestant, is not overtly religious, but probably counts as "Protestant" when Congress is divvied up by religion. But if he decided not to run, we would certainly elect a liberal Jew, Catholic or Muslim before a conservative Protestant. We're voting for the politics, not the religion. There are undoubtedly some districts that vote based on religion, but I suspect that is in areas where religion and politics are predictably coupled.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of becoming a troll . . .

This is completely OT, except it's another case of "What the #8*k are they thinking?" Which is tangentially related to Sanchez.

Have any of you seen the British 10:10 campaign. It was an advertising campaign done to encourage reducing carbon emissions by 10%. Basically, anyone whose not down with cutting their emissions gets blown up. Graphically. And that's the message of the commercial. Maybe I'm off here, but the campaign just seems so appalling, I almost wonder if it was designed by a secret conservative or petroleum industry flack endeavoring to make British environmental activist seem unhinged.

I wonder what the reaction would be if some Tea Party group had come up with something like this about controlling government spending or something.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/306367.php

Yeesh. I just had to know what some other folks here thought. Sorry for the OT.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, the direct link for the atrocious 10:10 campaign at Eyeblast. Not trying to force anyone to go to Ace of Spades . . .

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hdkU6U2GaG

That's it. No more OT from me. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I think you all have your panties in wads because the voters of this country are so obviously getting ready to refudiate your boy Obama and his leftist policies. I guess we could call the outbursts in this thread "precriminations."

Posted by: RecriminyCricket | October 1, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin - The only footage we have available is that produced by the IDF (all other recordings destroyed by the IDF). Commandos descended via rope one by one onto the upper deck where there were many activists. "Subduing" seems no mystery in that circumstance.

Re euphemisms... to be avoided as their function is to produce a false impression.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Who is Stewart? I gather that he's Jewish, but who is he? Jon Stewart?

Posted by: ShovelPlease | October 1, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Jewish people are an opressed minority in America? Oh, really?

Posted by: YadaYada1 | October 1, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Jewish people are an opressed minority in America? Oh, really?

Posted by: YadaYada1 | October 1, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Jewish people are an opressed minority in America? Oh, really?

Posted by: YadaYada1 | October 1, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

pardon the multiple posts. Technical difficulties.

Posted by: YadaYada1 | October 1, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Re euphemisms... to be avoided as their function is to produce a false impression."

Was not my intention to be euphemistic. I meant it was an either/or--either they acted properly or improperly. I.e., good or bad. I was not trying to be euphemistic, and I apologize if that's how it came across.

"Commandos descended via rope one by one onto the upper deck where there were many activists. 'Subduing' seems no mystery in that circumstance."

Yes, it does. If it was you and me rappelling onto the deck, then how they would subdue us would, indeed, be no mystery. Israeli commandos are not normal people. How peace activists could subdue Israeli commandos without (a) being something significantly better trained than your average peace activist or (b) the commandos were playing possum in order to lull their victims into a false sense of security. Just curious about the explanation. Even how that's covered in the story just comes across weird.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 1, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

@kevin (I'll leave the subject after this)

Cool on the unintended euphemism. Thanks for clarification.

I went back and dug up the IDF video of the commandos roping down. Not difficult to see how individuals could be overwhelmed by greater numbers in that circumstance.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I missed the last thread where you asked this, but I do pretty much avoid the comments here because of the trolls, and I was fairly regular at your old place (under a different handle.)

I know this is a technical change that would have to be decided by even higher-ups than banning, but to my thinking, the best solution would be the ability for each of us to "hide" commenters we don't want to see. Yes, there would still be the problem of other people who respond to them, but there would be no question of heavy-handedness, and other than the initial implementation. Essentially, it would be a way to do "don't feed the trolls" and "just scroll past" that would actually *work*.

Furthermore, it wouldn't any require extra work from Post staff, so it would actually be scalable to *all* the comment sections at the Post, most of which, it has been pointed out, are much worse than the trolls here because no one polices or responds to them at all.

That's my pipe dream; take it for what it's worth.

Posted by: jimeh | October 1, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Sanchez has been a well deserved target of the Daily Show for years. Bottom Line- not very smart and does a bad imitation of TED KNIGHT from the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Time for CNN to cut him loose.

Posted by: BBear1 | October 1, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Our sketch show did a take on Sanchez last year - and he found it while Googling himself!

http://www.topstoryweekly.com/2009/11/27/watch-rick-sanchez-on-cnn-from-top-story-weekly-episode-29-sunny-days/

Posted by: TopStoryWeekly | October 1, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess...nothing will happen to Sanchez because, like all other stupid comments made by Democrats, they are excused because they are on the side of "right" (or should I say "left"?)
If a conservative had said the same, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be call for action and action would be had.
Clearly, the double standard will live on. Sad, sad, sad but true, true, true...

Unless of course, LOTS of people write to CNN and DEMAND his suspension (or firing as would be requested of any other broadcaster).

Posted by: Lynne5 | October 1, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Hmm...even an idiot like Rick Sanchez sometimes speaks the truth.

Posted by: alientech | October 1, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess...nothing will happen to Sanchez because, like all other stupid comments made by Democrats, they are excused because they are on the side of "right" (or should I say "left"?)

Posted by: Lynne5 | October 1, 2010 5:43 PM |
++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for sharing your awesome powers of prediction. Care to reassess, now that Rick Sanchez has been fired by CNN?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm not convinced, Mr. Sargent. But even if he's not specifically attacking Jews and just got sloppy with his language, it's still an amazingly dumb over-generalization. Particularly because it was almost certainly in response to the many times Mr. Stewart has mocked him, and will simply earn him even more mockery.

Oh, and BTW, Lynne5:

["If a conservative had said the same, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be call for action and action would be had."]

Yeah, like all the times liberals like Carl Paladino and Michael Steele have said outrageous things or sent outrageous emails and never saw any punishment for them, while poor conservative Shirley Sharrod made a speech *rejecting* racism and got fired for it...

Oh, wait, Paladino and Steele are Reich Wingers, while Sharrod is a liberal. Gee, guess you're *lying*, like you martyr-complex infested Reich Wingers always do.

Posted by: jiji1 | October 1, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

First of all - it was wrong for the questioner to keep bringing up Jon Stewart - when the conversation was about the workplace doings.


Because then the two topics got intertwined - and one person may be talking one thing - and the other person may STILL be trying to make the point on the other topic.

"Left wing northeast Establishment guys" is really the topic - none other - and the discussion is really about the workplace - it not about religion.

It is hard to see this as an anti-semitic remark.

Rick Sanchez must be thinking to himself WHERE ARE THOSE WASPS WHEN YOU NEED THEM ????


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Adios, Dirty Sanchez!

Posted by: bryan2369 | October 1, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Anti-semitism from the liberal lame-stream media? I don't believe it!

Posted by: GiveMeThat | October 1, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

To Lynne5:
How is this about the Democrats? Or about “if a conservative said the same…”
Sanchez was talking about left wing elite northeast establishment guys – does that make him a Democrat? Seriously?

Posted by: rabraham | October 1, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I agree, rabraham, Sanchez is no lefty if he talks of "left-wing elite northeast establishment guys..." And calling Jon Stewart a bigot reminds me of Glenn Beck calling President Obama a racist. What complete, utter nonsense.

Having said that, doesn't Sanchez make a valid point when he asserts that Jews no longer constitute an oppressed minority in this country?

At one time there was significant discrimination. And I know occasionally hate crimes are still perpetrated against Jews. But haven't nativist Americans largely refocused their bigotry on the newer kids on the block; i.e. Hispanics and Muslims?

Which brings me to Sanchez's almost laughable attempt to place himself among oppressed Hispanic minorities like Mexicans and Guatemalans.

After claiming to have been patronized with 'taps on the head,' and pigeon-holed as a John Quinones-like beat reporter, Sanchez asserts, "I just think it's important that people who are not minorities understand that those of us who are ... are actually more complex than they think we are."

This coming from a man who stereotypes "left-wing elites" while claiming Jon Stewart is a bigot! There might be complexity in Sanchez's convoluted reasoning, but I don't think it's the good kind. I'm glad CNN dropped him, as he is clearly a buffoon.

Posted by: tjshire | October 2, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

And just to clarify, I do realize that Sanchez is Cuban-American (based on what others have said on this comment thread). What I don't see is significant anti-Cuban-American discrimination in our society.

I don't live in Florida, so my perception could be wrong. Nevertheless, Sanchez seems to have done pretty well up to this point. Perhaps better than he deserved, based on his actual abilities.

Posted by: tjshire | October 2, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me, but most of the people who run the networks ARE Jewish. That's a fact.

Posted by: MagicDog1 | October 2, 2010 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Ahhh the mask is starting to slip for the progressives. Desperation is causing tempers to flare and fault lines to appear in the hodgepodge of "me first" special agenda groups.

Let's see how much self-critique the self-appointed morality masters will put upon themselves. Liberals are very capable of calling everyone else racists or anti-Arab bigots and such. But when the reality is laid bare, do they hold themselves to the standards they hoist upon others?

From Greg's article you may start to see the answer. Because you know, every Tea Party candidate has had the benefit of "in context" when having their word quoted. Yeaahhhh right, see Mr. Grayson on that matter.

Posted by: NelsonMuntz | October 2, 2010 3:41 AM | Report abuse

His comments regarding CNN management were more likely the cause than his comments regarding Jews. He's correct that there are a lot of Jews working in the media business, and it could cause him to feel on the outside at times. He could have apologized, and his host made a good point that Jews do still face discrimination in a lot of places.

Few people can survive publicly knocking their company's management as hard as Sanchez did.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 2, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

It is absolutely ridiculous to call Jews an oppressed minority in today's America. By any statistical measure whether it be wealth, lifespan or anything, Jews as a group are doing much better than the country as a whole,

There's nothing wrong with them doing well because they earned it by hard work and intelligent choices in life. However, you also can't expect anyone to take it seriously if someone calls them an oppressed minority.

How many Jewish truckers do you know versus Jewish accountants or lawyers or doctors or producers? Jewish culture tends to place much more emphasis on reading, education and making money than say Southern Baptist does. So, why it is it a surprise that Jews are more heavily represented in those professions?

Posted by: jimk9999 | October 2, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Everyone seems to be offended by comments people make in passing or in relaxed conversations nowadays. What's going on! I see it more and more lately. If I were to tell you comments I heard as a youth, your hair would stand on end, and no one took offense - we laughed it off. Rick's List was a great show and he was "tops" as an an anchor. I'll miss the show a lot.

Posted by: missigoa | October 2, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I LIKE RICk SANCHEZ and his reporting, and his point of view - it's that simple, some is good on point or they are not, Rick is "on point". Shame on the network for firing him for simply stating his opinion. It's a free country with free speech. Did we forget that? Hummm. These managers in power (for the moment) think they are doing what's best for everyone - they are not, the majority do not share their views or their values, and they will pay th price in short time. They will pay the price. They - and their children - and childrens children will pay!

Posted by: kldprop | October 2, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Being one of the "oppressed minority", I can positively say, "once a putz, always a putz".

Posted by: hdsubnick | October 2, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a big fan of Sanchez outside of his news reporting. He takes himself too seriously, takes jokes about him too personally and replies to them in pretentious playful manners which you can see right through. He could use a lot more sense of humor, but otherwise, he is a news casting professional. His comments are a stretch and therefore somewhat bigotted, but there's some truth in them. Not that jews are not an opprressed minority but to believe that they are as oppressed as blacks and latinos would be delusional. One of the obvious explanations is that skin color plays a big part in prejudice.

Posted by: tellitlikeitis4 | October 2, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

What Sanchez said is so true and more people need to say it. The Jews do have a stranglehold on many key industries. It's a fact.

I used to work in New York and observed Jewish prejudice first hand. I have a German last name that many people in hiring thought was Jewish. That's why I got hired so easily in NYC. When they found out later I was not Jewish, their attitudes changed. I was the one demoted and laid off, when a Jewish girl with less experience than me was promoted.

This is not personal to Jews. But they do have a culture of taking care of their own. Some, most, Jews are very talented and deserve the perks, but not all of them. Probably less than half do. We need to establish some affirmative action guidelines for these companies to make sure that non-Jews get a fair shake too. Because enough is enough.

If Jews keep up with this is will not be in their best interest either because even if they fire and squelch the statements of those who speak out, eventually the word will get out and resentment will grow. And parties will come up that will target them, like has so often happened in history. One has to wonder what the Tea Party is about for instance.

So to prevent that, Jews need to stop their own prejudicial behavior before it gets to a certain point where it bites them back. But let's see if they can do it this time.

Posted by: gosamer | October 3, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain how in the present time, in the US, that Jews are a political or economic minority? And can someone please explain how thinking that Jews are not a minority is anti-semitic, I don't think having this idea is anti-semitic, but please I want a mature explanation. Sanchez's implication that Jews own the media is wrong, I'm more concerned on how believing that Jews are not a minority is in any way anti-semitic.

Posted by: grandpasguerrilla | October 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The whole controversy seems like an orchestrated campaign to exile anyone that expresses alternate opinion. This is akin to McCarthyism, Fascism, and the like. It would have been better if CNN tried to do an introspection to see if its top management lineup was predominantly Jewish vis-à-vis the proportion of Jews in US, and if so, at least acknowledge it. It may not necessarily imply that Jews control media but at least partly corroborate what Rick Sanchez said. And if Rick was correct about the dominance of a particular ethnic group, the least CNN could do was to enforce diversity by hiring other ethnic groups in future to correct that anomaly.

Posted by: boldopinion1 | October 6, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company