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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jon,

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

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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!.

Jesurgislac,

I already said:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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

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?

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.)

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?

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.

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.