Speaking of 'Pitiful'

Friday, June 22. 2007

Though I disagree with his political views, I like movie critic Roger Ebert, and respect his abilities as a movie reviewer.

However, this excerpt from a review of A Mighty Heart, a movie about the kidnapping of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is simply ridiculous and speaks volumes about how many in the press seem to view their critics:

The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful.

Critics who dare question war coverage are the "ideological cousins" of those who would murder reporters?

What unmitigated and arrogant nonsense. No wonder many in the media are held in such low regard...

Posted by Tom Elia in Media at 13:33 | Comments (26) | Trackbacks (16)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I trust Ebert on the movie essentials (old film classics) and most non-political genres, but for anything even remotely political, the moonbat balcony is always open -- he throws his brain out the window.

#1 capitano on 2007-06-22 15:08 (Reply)

I really love Ebert (I've been reading him for my entire movie-going life), so it's no strain for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he's talking about those who are so extreme in wanting only news that improves moral, then it's a watered-down version of the government-controlled press of totalitarian nations.

But if we're going to get all defensive about who's an ideological cousin of the groups that shoot news crews, I haven't forgotten the comments on this site that cropped up on the article about the AP posting details about the American Embassy in Iraq. I know talk is cheap, but talking about killing AP reporters kind of does put you in the same ideological category as terrorists who kill reporters.

#2 some girl from Chicago on 2007-06-22 15:40 (Reply)

So you're equating one fool commenting on this site with a world-renowned movie reviewer?

Come on!

I like Ebert too, but his attempt at equating media critics of the war with terrorists trying to murder them is dumb -- even for political discourse emanating from Chicago.

But it is, unfortunately, par for the course for too many.

#2.1 Tom Elia on 2007-06-22 15:54 (Reply)

My point was that Ebert was talking about an extreme sentiment, not a mainstream one. I could easily be wrong on that; when I go word by word on his statement it sounds like I am ("those who who resent being informed" is a pretty broad insult-catagory).

If he was talking about the sentiment of the extreme right, then I'm on his side. There's an ugly side of the far right that shoots up abortion clinics, dreams of blowing up the NY Times, and openly talks about killing judges.

But I've wandered way, way off topic. Just try to keep in mind that Ebert's a nice guy, who isn't a political writer, who got excited by a political movie and started spouting off. He's still on the mend from that surgery too, so cut him some slack.

#2.1.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-06-22 19:40 (Reply)

I don't think he was talking about an extreme element at all, but I could be wrong:

"The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful."

But this isn't the first time Mr. Ebert has sounded ridiculous when talking about politics...

He's still an extraordinarily gifted man who has gone through what I'm sure is hell with his numerous bouts with cancer, so he does deserve our utmost respect for dealing with that.

I hope that he lives a very, very long time and aggravates me a lot more with his political views....

#2.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2007-06-22 19:57 (Reply)

sgfC wrote, "My point was that Ebert was talking about an extreme sentiment".

Ebert wrote, "The Americans who complain about 'negative' news".

So in sgfC's world, complaint is extreme.

Ebert is an ass. This reflects poorly on those who defend his asinine statements.

#2.1.1.2 Jim C. on 2007-06-22 20:55 (Reply)

You are projecting too much of your anger on the "extreme right". Please cite the last example of an abortion clinic being 'shot up'. Please provide a cite for 'killing judges'.

As a conservative, I can provide counter examples which are recent such as Republican party offices being shot up http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=showstories&catid=2 or Republican party volunteers being physically intimidated by goons who intruded in an office http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/008095.php. How about the very liberal talk show host in Milwaukee who said that it was god's vengance that a conservative competitor's mother had died and that the white host had probably killed her? http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/13254969/detail.html.

Please, don't tell me that liberals are all just sweetness and rationality. It just isn't so.

The larger point that Ebert makes is a great example of the left's ongoing effort to distort our language. Real bullet shots, real physical intimidation, real assaults and threats are violent acts that are breaking down our society and should not be tolerated. Calling one's competitor a mother-killer is despicable, but it is not violence.

Discussing the truth of what journalists write, similarly is at the far end of the spectrum from severing the head of a journalist. But if on Ebert's planet, a critical news consumer is equivalent to a murdering jihadist - well it certainly reflects poorly on those who read him uncritically

#2.2 red on 2007-06-22 21:31 (Reply)

What evidence do you have that Ebert's remark reflects "how many in the press seem to view their critics?"

Talk about "unmitigated and arrogant nonsense." Your statement simply reflects your own anti-press bias.

#3 Dexter Westbrook on 2007-06-22 16:18 (Reply)

Do you read the same newspapers and magazines I do?

#3.1 Tom Elia on 2007-06-22 16:34 (Reply)

So you don't have any evidence. If you do, let's see it. Let's see your evidence that "many in the press" equate public criticism with a desire to shoot reporters.

You don't have any evidence this is true. It is just your opinion, and a ridiculous one.

Ebert is spouting arrogant nonsense. So are you.

#3.1.1 Dexter Westbrook on 2007-06-22 16:56 (Reply)

That's not what I am asserting.

I am saying that Ebert's words -- "The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful" -- reflect the attitude of many in the media.

I think that Ebert takes it a step beyond most, but yes, I think most in the media believe that their critics are fools for not seeing the world the way they do.

#3.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2007-06-22 17:01 (Reply)

Tom, please forgive Dexter's rudeness. He's always grumpy when he wakes up, and he's been asleep for the last fifty years.

Dexter, you obviously have a lot of catching up to do. Since you've missed everything that's been discussed in the blogosphere for all these years, I suggest that you start by reading "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg and "Coloring the News" by William McGowan.

#3.1.1.1.1 pst314 on 2007-06-23 08:06 (Reply)

"The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful."

When has the American media ever reported good news, especially as it pertains to the United States and its military?

Why do I have to look to military bloggers to read about an Iraqi police machine gunner single handedly thwarting a mass terrorist attack on his station, as Iraqi civilians help him by using their cell phones to call in the locations of the oncoming car bombs?

This is a story any reputable news agency would highlight, which is why it wasn't reported anywhere in the American media.

#4 Tom W. on 2007-06-22 16:27 (Reply)

If a reporter got shot am I supposed to weep?

1) They signed up for the gig. It is VOLUNTARY.
2) Projection does not become the, reporter. Way too much of what I see coming from green zone rooftops is not reporting but analysis. Usually of a leftist kind.
3) Speaking of roof tops, why are their so many reports from them? Like is Michael Yon the only guy with the cajoles to be an embed, eat the MRE mixed with dirt, and generally sweat it out in the back of a Stryker?

To Ebert -- stick it.

#5 JohnMc on 2007-06-22 16:36 (Reply)

Ebert also said, "We reflect that the majority of Muslims do not approve of the behavior of Islamic terrorists, just as the majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq."

If he truly believed criticism = helping kill people, he would not have said that. More liberal illogic.

#6 DonSurber (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 16:42 (Reply)

I had watched Ebert (along with Siskel, initially) for years and appreciated his historical perspective on movies as well as his technical expertise.

However, I noticed after we went into Iraq that he was more and more frequently allowing his political opinions to seep into his reviews. Since these were invariable of the "hate Bush" moonbat variety I found his movie reviews were becoming more and more offensive.

I sent him a comment once that it would be nice if he kept his personal opinions to himself, since Bush-hatred really doesn't have anything to do with most movies. He sent me back a shrieking flame worthy of a KosKid.

I finally gave up on him as being totally lost to Bush Derangement Syndrome when, in his review of "The Road to Guantanamo" he stated unequivocally that American soldiers routinely torture the people they capture.

I wrote Mr. Ebert, and the TV station that carried his program, that I wouldn't be watching his review any more and why, and never heard anything back from either of them, so assumed it was A-OK with him that he might be bleeding viewers who objected to his blatently over-the-top viewpoint.

Interesting to hear that a year or more later, he is still reviewing movies and still being deranged.

#7 NahnCee on 2007-06-22 16:50 (Reply)

The news is the news, comrades! Please - how can anyone argue that the news involves value judgments - what is said, how it is said, what is emphasized - Bah! "The news is the news!" Why, if NO news outlet told us about trouble in the middle east - then it DID NOT HAPPEN! The news is the news. Pray tell, who decides what is "news"?

#8 Californio on 2007-06-22 17:00 (Reply)

Look at the bright side. At least Mr. Ebert didn't contrive a review of A Mighty Heart without mentioning Pakistan, terrorism, or Islamic terrorists as Richard Roeper did on Ebert and Roeper at the Movies. Roeper's feat was reminiscent of The Red Shoes. Can you imagine a review of Flags of Our Fathers or Pearl Harbor that didn't mention the Japanese, a review of Helter-Skelter that didn't mention the Manson "family", or a review of Titanic that didn't mention the iceberg?

#9 Dave Schuler (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 17:03 (Reply)

If we apply Ebert's logic to his own profession, does that mean film critics are the ideological cousins of those who murder filmmakers?

#10 danku (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 17:14 (Reply)

Given Mr. Ebert's heartfelt opinion on this subject, I'm quite certain that he holds an equally dim view of those who criticize, say, FoxNews... right? I mean, "the news is the news," so all this stuff about Fox being "GOP-TV" must be nonsense and the ones spouting it are just one step away from Danny Pearl's killers.

#11 Ben on 2007-06-22 17:17 (Reply)

Dexter Westbrook wrote "What evidence do you have that Ebert's remark reflects 'how many in the press seem to view their critics?'"

Well, there were the comments by Linda Foley of the Associated Press two years ago, who complained that the reporters are the targets of unwarranted criticsim by Republicans, and then segued quickly into accusations that they are ACTUAL targets of the U.S. military in Iraq.

You can read a transcript here: http://thedustyattic.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-of-linda-foleys-talk.html

#12 jblog on 2007-06-22 17:24 (Reply)

I've been a fan of Ebert's for decades and have deep respect for his film knowledge and criticism. However when it comes to politics, he's on the extreme left. Right after 9/11 he wrote some political columns, and his moonbattiness was already showing.

#13 Maetenloch on 2007-06-22 17:32 (Reply)

Gee. Sounds like the press has "absolute moral authority."

I've tangled with Ebert before at my old blog.

http://delbocavista.blogspot.com/2005/02/roger-ebert-movie-moron.html

#14 Brendan on 2007-06-22 18:00 (Reply)

I am still having a tough time digesting this quote from post #5.

Ebert also said, "We reflect that the majority of Muslims do not approve of the behavior of Islamic terrorists, just as the majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq."

I would venture a guess that a healthy percentage of the Americans who oppose the war still support the goal of defeating the Islamists. Does that imply that a healthy percentage of Muslims oppose the Islamic terrorists BUT still support the goals? Just asking.

#15 Anonymous on 2007-06-22 18:15 (Reply)

Ebert, as one might expect of a man who has spent the greater part of his adult life in a dark room watching movies, rather than reading books or engaging the world, is somewhat ignorant about the world, its history, and the lives of those outside the circle of sycophants who line up to hear him speak. Thus when he speaks outside his one area of expertise, I don't expect anything particularly wise or learned, and consequently I am rarely disappointed.

#16 michael edelman (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 19:56 (Reply)

Thank God we have Hollywood movies to:
- explain America to the rest of the world
- explain the rest of the world to America
- enable movie reviewers to tell us not only what most Muslims, but most Americans, really think and feel.

What's not to like about having the burning issues of the world all wrapped up in an easily-digestible package for you by movie stars and movie reviewers?

We should thank our lucky stars that we have our precious Hollywood celebrities to represent us to the world, too. Without them, our image might be nothing more than thousands of idealistic young men and women risking their lives to free millions from tyranny. Not cool, as I am sure Mr. Ebert can verify that we all agree.

Is there any doubt that without Hollywood and the media we would be morally adrift? In the spirit of self-sacrifice for the advancement of human awareness, I hereby volunteer to find out whether we could possibly exist without them. If it could somehow be arranged, I'm more than ready. Please.

#17 Ray Van Dune on 2007-06-22 20:01 (Reply)

"If it could somehow be arranged, I'm more than ready. Please."

It's simple, Ray. Vote with your wallet. Millions of people already are with the newspaper industry, so why not with Hollywood too?

#17.1 Ed Minchau (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 22:38 (Reply)

I am disappointed to hear a grown man like Ebert seriously use such a juvenile phrase as "the news is the news." That is so innocent and childlike and ignorant of the world. It's really hard to believe he wrote that.

Eighth graders are the ones who think that there is "news" "somewhere out there" and the reporters just "find it" and "report on it." I guess some unreflective uneducated adults entertain the same kind of notions.

He works on a newspaper and he says such stuff? I guess it's the illness.

You only have to be a copy boy at a paper for about two weeks before you realize that the "front page news" is what the editors decide to put there, and that's that. When you think a little more deeply, you realise that "the world's news" is the sum total of what the editors of the worlds biggest papers think is worthy of attention that day. Period.

#18 John Maguire on 2007-06-22 21:31 (Reply)

Eason Johnson of similarly retarded CNN was shit-canned for a similar comment---Ebert is a fixture and his judgment on movies is esthetically okay.

He should stay away from politics; just doesn't have the smarts.

#19 daveinboca (Homepage) on 2007-06-22 21:41 (Reply)

Long long ago, in a city far away, I once ran into Ebert on an irregular basis at Roma's Restaurant across from DePaul.

He seemed nice enough and didn't harass the waitresses. I didn't check his tips.

However, my politics has moved on and his is still stuck in amber.

He is living fat off an America that he does not think is worth fighting for. He is living large off the capital of a civilization he thinks is not worth defending. Can't stand to watch his reviews any more.

#20 M. Simon on 2007-06-22 23:19 (Reply)

Tom, did you notice the goofy error Ebert made two sentences prior to the one you comment on?

"Mariane Pearl reminds us in her book, and the movie reminds us, too, that some 230 other journalists had lost their lives at the time of Pearl's kidnapping, most of them during the conflict in Iraq."

Pearl was kidnapped on January 23, 2002. The invasion of Iraq did not happen until March 2003.

#21 pst314 on 2007-06-23 08:48 (Reply)

Well that sort of puts the timeline into question, doesn't it?

#21.1 Tom Elia on 2007-06-23 16:32 (Reply)

This is the man who gave 2.5 stars to "Gigli."

#22 Jerry on 2007-06-23 10:08 (Reply)

So murdering reporters is ultimately our fault because we are "ideological cousins??

How about the murdered reporters in Algeria or Russia--are they our fault too? And how about Mexico--they're no pikers in this contest. Are they our cousins too, or are some people just bad? http://www.cpj.org/deadly/index.html

#23 LadyNextDoor on 2007-06-23 18:56 (Reply)

To give an example of Ebert's foolishness, here is a paragraph from his review of "The Motorcycle Diaries":

"Che Guevara makes a convenient folk hero for those who have not looked very closely into his actual philosophy, which was repressive and authoritarian. Like his friend Fidel Castro, he was a right-winger disguised as a communist. He said he loved the people but he did not love their freedom of speech, their freedom to dissent, or their civil liberties. Cuba has turned out more or less as he would have wanted it to."

It's good that Ebert noticed that Che was an evil man, but it's imbecilic for him to think that Che's love for tyranny and terror meant that he was a right-winger rather than a communist. One might excuse such ignorance in 1907, but not in 2007.

#24 pst314 on 2007-06-24 09:15 (Reply)

I used to like Ebert (and Siskel), but after they both gave "thumbs-up" to a godawful movie named "UP THE CREEK" some years ago, that was it for me.

I wonder if they were paid off to give that review; it was a hideous film.

#25 Chester White on 2007-06-26 07:43 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Friday, June 22. 2007

Speaking of 'Pitiful'

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Friday, June 22. 2007

Speaking of 'Pitiful'

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites