Sanchez’s first mistake

on 111 Comments

I must point out that Rick Sanchez, who was unceremoniously fired by CNN today for talking some trash about Jon Stewart and the Jewish ownership of networks, was one of the few network anchors to give any attention to the Palestinian side of the story. He was plainly alarmed by the Israeli assault on Gaza in 08-09. He interviewed Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu. And below, he interviewed Mustafa Barghouti, and showed that Israel broke the cease-fire ahead of the Gaza onslaught. 

As for his recent comments about Jews not being an oppressed minority and Jews owning the television networks– it seems to me that these are legitimate subjects for discussion. Maybe his tone was inappropriate, maybe he should have gotten out the kid gloves. But they are legitimate subjects; and the manner of Sanchez’s dispatching is only likely to feed uninformed debate about the nature of the American establishment. Let’s talk about it.

Of course I hope that in his next incarnation Sanchez looks more deeply into the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Somehow I sense that’s not in the cards…

111 Responses

  1. Avi
    October 1, 2010, 10:52 pm

    He should have gone on a tirade about Muslims, Islamo-fascism and the Muslim menace plaguing the west. It would have earned him a nice dinner and a prize at Harvard. Don’t you think?

    The irony here is that Sanchez was fired for stating the truth. I mean, what better way to prove to the American people that the media are not owned by Jews than to summarily fire Sanchez? Had he said that the media are owned by Muslims, he’d certainly get to keep his job, thus proving that Muslims do NOT control the media.

    Incidentally, where is that drone who keeps whining about the Arab Lobby? He posts comments on here from time to time.

    • aparisian
      October 2, 2010, 3:38 am

      Exactly Avi, He would get a trophy if he insults Muslims the way bigot Peretz does! And then keep screaming freedom of speech, fake fake fake.

      • radii
        October 2, 2010, 2:34 pm

        Sanchez did couch his words in kid-gloves – he talked obliquely rather than just stating the obvious … and, yes, the fact that less than 2% of the U.S. population has such a vastly disproportionate ownership/management influence over our “news” media is a legitimate topic for discussion. If it were dark-skinned African Camaroonians, or – funnier – drag queens who held this near monopoly over media power it would be topic A when learned people discussed how issues were being framed and what got showcased in the media … but because all zionists and some other jews fall back on the victimhood card and then charge anti-semitism when the subject is broached it freezes discussion and puts critics on the defensive … well, this tactic is no longer working and Sanchez was inartful in his swan-song dive whereas he could have generated more mileage by just being direct about it.

  2. bob
    October 1, 2010, 10:58 pm

    Rick was the first one I could point to on the US MSM side who covered the “Israel breaking the ceasefire” issue. Of course, he lacked nuance here as well. There were a few wounded elderly Palestinians that occurred just days after the ceasefire was called. If these were Israelis, they would have had ample US news time. Yet, Sanchez was the lone voice here.

    I would have preferred him talk about the victim meme, and never cover collective power. He could have pulled stats showing religion and jews as the wealthiest… well.. nevermind, that would probably get him fired too.

  3. CTuttle
    October 1, 2010, 11:00 pm

    Honestly, I was disappointed with CNN’s knee-jerk reaction, it reminded me of Helen Thomas’ sudden ‘retirement’… ! The totality of one’s works needs to be considered… Marty Peretz comes to mind, in particularly…! But, I was sorely disappointed when many of my FDL brethren ‘piled on’ Sanchez for his ‘bigotry’…! 8-(

    • Antidote
      October 2, 2010, 1:59 am

      Sanchez calling Stewart a bigot reminds me of Stewart’s show on Helen Thomas when ‘go home’- gate catapulted her from front seat into oblvion within 48 hrs. It provided ample proof that Stewart is an insufferable bigot. I also started to notice that he mentions being Jewish in just about every show. A little obsessed?

      So why should Sanchez have used ‘kid gloves’? Why can Jews trample over everybody, ruin their careers and reputations, but need to be kid gloved themselves?
      Frankly, having been kid gloved for decades (except for the ‘self-hating’ Jews, of course, who fare no better than Thomas or Sanchez) , in Israel or the US, has not improved their behavior. Quite the opposite is true.

  4. Avi
    October 1, 2010, 11:10 pm

    Of course I hope that in his next incarnation Sanchez looks more deeply into the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Somehow I sense that’s not in the cards…


    This incident might motivate him to fight that allegedly non-existent lobby with ferocity and determination.

    I guess Jews are a weak minority in the U.S.. That’s how they are able to fire a CNN anchorman within hours, because they are clearly marginalized. Duh.

    • annie
      October 2, 2010, 8:16 pm

      I guess Jews are a weak minority in the U.S.. That’s how they are able to fire a CNN anchorman within hours, because they are clearly marginalized. Duh.

      the word is oppressed avi, an oppressed minority.

  5. Palmyra
    October 1, 2010, 11:25 pm

    First of all, Sanchez is a newsmodel moron but no more so than Cooper, et al.

    And he didn’t even bring up Jewishness. In his bashing of Stewart(AND Colbert) he was referring to the economic class that typically oppresses blacks and hispanics. Then the host totally got it twisted and said something like “but John Stewart is a minority too”. Only then did Sanchez pointed out that Jews are not oppressed in this day and age in America. In the end of the interview the host patted him on the back and told him he was cool even.

    There isn’t a word about this in any headline or outrage blog. Headlines all read “Antisemite Sanchez says Jews control the media!”

    It’s also quite obvious that at least 90% of all commenters haven’t even listened to the audio and another 9% have only read the one sentence from the transcipt.

    The only thing this proves is that Sanchez IS a moron…for thinking he would get away with it. It’s old news to anyone with a brain.

    Funniest post on Huffpo:

    “When we blacks control the media we won’t fire you for saying so”

    • MRW
      October 2, 2010, 12:54 am

      The only thing this proves is that Sanchez IS a moron…for thinking he would get away with it. It’s old news to anyone with a brain.

      Correct. But this might backfire. Phil is right about the manner of Sanchez’s dispatching. And this is going to reverberate throughout the Latino community. Coupled with Stephen Steinlight’s article in June 2006 (from the anti-immigration org that pushed Lou Dobbs’ agenda) entitled Open Borders Threaten Jewish Clout and which Foxman tried to die down later, this was the wrong move. I got a call from a highly politically aware Latino friend of mine this afternoon, someone who is really popular in this community and doesn’t put up with anti-semitic remarks in his presence, and his opening gambit was, “You hear what the Jews did to Sanchez?”

    • Saleema
      October 2, 2010, 1:32 am

      LOL. That is funny. Props to the person who said it.

    • Antidote
      October 2, 2010, 2:06 am

      “The only thing this proves is that Sanchez IS a moron…for thinking he would get away with it. It’s old news to anyone with a brain.”

      So unless you grovel and play the game, you’re a moron?
      No wonder the US media are such a joke.

      But thx for the clarification. The post from HP IS funny.

      • Palmyra
        October 2, 2010, 1:14 pm

        No he’s a moron, period. He’s not letting realities slip out because of any sort of righteous agenda, it’s pure carelessness. Of course it was only a matter of time since he dared criticize Israel the first time(in the video above) that he’d be taken out. In other words, it doesn’t take any sort of genius to come to the conclusions he has. The illusion in American media is that no one has yet came to these conclusions, and since this is upheld by everyone BUT Sanchez, he had to go.

        Sanchez was only hired by CNN – way too late I might add – as the quasi-Hispanic veneer to cover up the stench of Lou Dobbs’ blatant xenophobia but he’s an empty suit with no impulse control, which spells danger in the industry of “real” news.

        It does take a certain self awareness and restraint to hold back your inner logic if you want to be successful in US media. There’s the paradox for cable media execs – they need anchors who are either numbed up enough by their paycheck or innate status to float over the issues(the usual choice – Cooper, Blitzer, etc), skin in the geopolitical game(rare, usually retired businessmen politicians), or the jackpot – which they thought they hit with Sanchez – an ethnic who can hint at the necessity for sympathy towards “the other”, but with ultimately neoliberal tendencies and conclusions(Zakaria, Amanpour – and at the amateur level Don Lemon & TJ Holmes).

        It’s rather ironic that his lack of self-awareness regarding his own affirmative action would lead to his downfall, but again he’s not very bright. They bafflingly trot him out when there’s something going on in the Latin world, where his ignorance really shines.

        Bottom line is there’s no “there” there, in US media. They shuffle around blindly. Their mistakes end up being their material.

      • Donald
        October 2, 2010, 3:04 pm

        I don’t watch CNN and had never heard of this guy–I also don’t intend to watch the clip and decide for myself what I think about what he said, because in the end I think you’re probably right. There are darn few people on television news who have anything resembling a brain or a conscience. They can all get fired for all I care.

      • Antidote
        October 3, 2010, 3:00 pm

        palmyra — you win hands down. And what you say about the US media is a fairly accurate description of US politics as well. I’m thinking of the ‘jackpot’ Obama, for instance. I hear Sanchez called him the ‘cotton-picking president’. Interesting. So the guy is a moron and bigot, and possibly, to cite MJ Rosenberg, his injured inner Cuban immigrant child pushed through during that interview. Jews can get the best jobs in the media, blacks can become president — what about ME?

        I had never heard of Sanchez before this scandal broke, and I think the last thing I watched on CNN was the pope’s funeral, because, not being Catholic myself, I am fascinated, preferably from a distance, with Catholic pageantry, and they do it best at the Vatican. And there was a funny joke circulating in Germany at that time, linking a controversial and highly unpopular new law (H4), which drastically reduced generous long-term social welfare benefits for Germans with papal succession: “H4 is starting to work: German takes Polish job”

      • Palmyra
        October 3, 2010, 10:27 pm

        Yes, and you could even go further and say that all political moves of late are nothing but responses to whatever the media decides to discuss; the inverse of what should be, in a ‘democracy’ – this is rather obvious and has been for at least a decade, the ‘jackpot’ phenomenon as well. So it’s one big pc commercial with no substance, and the only way it can work is with tacit internal agreement that no one actually opines, neither political players in their official press releases, nor following commentaries. Soviet style.

        Sad as it is, what Sanchez said on tape was probably the only 4th estate opinion let slip for years…oh except for that (mildly)recalcitrant ARAB, Helen Thomas. In her case it took someone from an Orwellian citizen brigade to pass her on to the media masters, who then dispatched her tout de suite.

        I really can’t think of anyone else who’s left…maybe Glenn Greenwald? They won’t even let him on tv because he’s so badass. You absolutely will be marginalized if you’re quick on your feet, and full of ‘opinions’.

  6. syvanen
    October 2, 2010, 12:41 am

    I have no idea how many times I say this: it is so painful to watch. Now Sanchez must sacrifice his career for defying what is considered acceptable commentary about Israel. Obviously this will go on for some time. The lobby controls the information coming to us through the mass media. And there is nothing we can do but watch.

    • lysias
      October 2, 2010, 10:36 am

      And there is nothing we can do but watch.

      Actually, we are also quite free to not watch — and that is what I suggest we do.

  7. homingpigeon
    October 2, 2010, 1:18 am

    I think there is nothing one can say about the Jewish people, even if complimentary, that cannot be construed as being in some way anti-Semitic, including what I just wrote, even though I wrote it lovingly and coming from a place of friendship. Oops, there is so much baggage that one does not say that one’s best friends are Jewish because anti Semites have said that in the past and hence that phrase is forever doomed. I learned forty years ago never to say that.

    I wonder how much of the problem is in the psyche of sensitive goyim. I myself, when I hear a stranger say anything about Israel or Jews, even if it’s something I agree with, and actually especially if it’s something I agree with, I get very nervous and uncomfortable. Before I acknowledge that I agree I have to make sure this person is not an anti Semite or a Holocaust denier or someone who is going to stir up khara with my Jewish friends.

    I know of cases where goyim in power in the media have turned down programs or interviews on the subject of Israel/Palestine, without having any deep convictions of their own, and without having any opinion on the content of the potential program, but because they don’t have the energy or desire to deal with the storm of protests they fear receiving.

  8. occupyresist
    October 2, 2010, 1:38 am

    When I saw that bit about the ceasefire I thought to myself “this guy clearly does not know the first thing about this conflict, and he does not know what he’s up against…he’s not going to last.” This is the channel whose main prop, Blitzer, is an ardent, outspoken, vocal Zionist.

    At the time I was glued to Livestation AlJazeera on my laptop, and was pretty angry at the MSM news coverage and the complete apathy in the US….then I found and joined some demonstrations. In Chicago, there were so many MASSIVE demonstrations in the cold, at least one in front of the Israeli consul that barely got a peep of coverage.

  9. hophmi
    October 2, 2010, 5:55 am

    Yeah, when I think Ted Turner, I think Jew.

    As usual, Phil, what you call a legitimate subject for discussion is not only easily dispensed with bigotry, but simply not worth dignifying in the first place.

    • MRW
      October 2, 2010, 7:07 am

      Give it a rest, hophmi.

    • Avi
      October 2, 2010, 7:18 am

      hophmi October 2, 2010 at 5:55 am

      Yeah, when I think Ted Turner, I think Jew.

      One doesn’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.

    • Amar
      October 2, 2010, 11:41 am

      Ted Turner was a maverick. The Zionists feared him and what he was capable of, so they took CNN out of his control (via Gerald Levin CEO of Time Inc). With precise timing as well, just a few weeks after Israels most right wing PM, Netanyahu, won the election in 1996. The Zionists knew that Netanyahu and Israel would get very bad press by CNN under Turners control, something which could potentially wake up the American people. So they got Levin to act quickly and the merger deal was done. CNN then slowly but noticeably begun to filter, edit, highlight, ignore news from the Mid-east thus taking the heat off Israel.

    • Palmyra
      October 2, 2010, 1:21 pm

      Ted Turner stepped down as vice-chairman of Time Warner in 2006

    • potsherd
      October 2, 2010, 2:26 pm

      Since when is “Jon Stewart” a Jewish name?

      Going after people by names is bigoted.

      • Taxi
        October 3, 2010, 8:40 am

        You get Scottish jews with the surname ‘Stewart’. I know me one.

      • potsherd
        October 3, 2010, 10:04 am

        And people change their names. This whole business about looking for “Jewish names,” making judgments about people because of their names is, well, bigoted.

  10. Gellian
    October 2, 2010, 6:02 am

    It was weird how fast he was shown the door. Made your head spin.

    Could there be some weird connection in which he is being made to do penance for Joe Sobran, who died yesterday?

    (No obit for Sobran in the NYT — you’ll have to look elsewhere.)

    • Gellian
      October 2, 2010, 6:55 am

      I spoke too soon. The Slimes does now have an op-ed about Sobran. Here’s how it starts:

      “Joseph Sobran, a hard-hitting conservative writer and moralist whose outspoken antipathy to Israel and what he saw as the undue influence of a Jewish lobby on American foreign policy led to his removal as a senior editor of National Review in 1993, died on Thursday in Fairfax, Va. He was 64 and lived in Burke, Va. ”

      What the hell kind of parenthetical is that? This is how a man’s life is summed up?

      link to

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 8:41 pm

        that does seem weird.

  11. Citizen
    October 2, 2010, 6:14 am

    Our resident self-declared liberal zionist RW repeatedly took the stance that the Palestinians broke the cease fire leading up to OP Cast Lead despite a pile of evidence put forth on this blog that it was the Israelis who did so on (if memory serves) November 4th. Did Witty get fired from this blog? Sanchez simply did not follow the MSM control group’s line during one of the few times the subject was even mentioned on primetime TV. So much for free speech and objectivity in reporting serious events when it comes to news regarding the I-P conflict. Are Mormons victims in Utah, Cubans in Miami? Is being Jewish a plus or a minus in the MSM news biz? Wait,
    we can’t count the numbers–that’s reserved for Noble & Pultizer prizes etc; and (if you’re Jewish) the range of “jewish geography.” Too, we have an analogy, black geography–the latter most understandable and acceptable despite its inconsistency with the tenents of Diversity due to the history of slavery in this country. To Kill A Mockingbird just doesn’t match up with
    Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This will pass as a tempest in a teapot–except to La Raza and lots of Hispanics–lots more of them then Helen Thomas ethnics in the current melting pot. Sanchez and Thomas both should have been more subtle in putting their point across–especially Thomas. Harvard is not behind them 100% and neither is Stewart-Maher. I think Geraldo should do an interview with Chas Freeman on his show.

    • Citizen
      October 2, 2010, 6:19 am

      BTW, Rachel Maddow was on her high horse recently, dissing a sports web site that counted whites on US professional sports teams. Will the David Duke approach become more acceptable in the MSM once we turn the demographic corner making whites a minority across the USA, rather than just in spots here and there? That day is not far away.

    • Richard Witty
      October 2, 2010, 8:10 am

      I know this is too subtle for you, but I never stated that Hamas “broke” the cease-fire.

      The cease-fire had officially ended when they permitted and then resumed unilateral shelling of Israeli civilians, before Israel retaliated militarily.

      The skirmishes that started Nov 4 and continued for a month, were plausibly self-defense. You don’t know for sure, and I don’t at this point.

      • LeaNder
        October 2, 2010, 10:08 am

        Richard, there is a slight problem with your statement. While what you write is correct, you never admitted that the resumption of shelling happened as a response to Israel’s attack, not the other way round.

        Look the reason given by the IDF simply didn’t convince many of us, among them people with military expertise.

        It’s rather obvious that you deliberately leave this out and always have. Hamas offered to prolong the truce, something Israel preferred to ignore, starting an attack. It has been argued convincingly that, if what the IDF told us was true, the problem could have been solved in rather different ways without hurting anybody. Look the timing was rather suspicious. And Hamas offer obviously was inconvenient to your beloved countries warriors.

        Your sneer does not work in this context.

      • Richard Witty
        October 2, 2010, 10:51 am

        The resumption of shelling in November was a “response”.

        The resumption of shelling after the December pause and Hamas reiteration that it sought to continue the cease-fire, was unilateral.

      • Richard Witty
        October 2, 2010, 10:54 am

        A decision to shell civilians, and to escalate the shelling of civilians, UNTIL Israel responded on the ground (which they hoped to “win” using the model of prior on the ground guerilla efforts, and Hezbollah’s “victory” in 2006).

        They baited, but weren’t prepared for a ground war.

        There’s no gloating in that. I consider the whole chain of events a stupid tragedy.

      • occupyresist
        October 2, 2010, 12:12 pm


        This post is begging you for comment:

        link to

        Beyond the fundamental right to life, “access of children to basic services, to social and leisure opportunities and to the care and nurturance of relatives beyond the immediate household has become subject to the whim of the Israeli administration and military forces”, as stated in the recent Oxford University Refugee Studies Centre’s Policy Briefing, “Protecting Palestinian children from political violence: the role of the international community” by Dr Jason Hart and Claudia Lo Forte.

      • potsherd
        October 2, 2010, 12:32 pm

        Nobody cares what you think, no matter how many times you clog up this site repeating it.

      • MRW
        October 2, 2010, 2:48 pm

        For the record:

        The skirmishes that started Nov 4 and continued for a month, were plausibly self-defense. You don’t know for sure, and I don’t at this point.


        The resumption of shelling in November was a “response”.

        Dead wrong. Israel killed6 Palestinians the night of Nov 4, 2008, the night of our election, and broke the ceasefire. No ifs, ands, or buts. The fact that RW doesn’t know is his ignorance, not ours. It’s history. It’s fact.

      • Shingo
        October 2, 2010, 6:21 pm

        “The resumption of shelling after the December pause and Hamas reiteration that it sought to continue the cease-fire, was unilateral.”

        Rubbish. There was no resumption of shelling after the December pause because there was no pause.

        You even claimed that there was a defacto agreement to return to ceasefire in December, but unbale to prove it (after being repeatedly challenged) you stopped making that false claim.

        The fact is that Hamas proposed returning to a ceasefire in mid December and Israel rejected it.

        Secondly, once you have started hostilities, there is no escalation. The ceasefire was over as of the 4th of December. Israel did not “Israel responded on the ground” you liar. They only sent in ground troops after weeks of aerial bombardment. You know, with dime bombs and white phosphorous? Or have you forgotten about that minor detail?

        “I consider the whole chain of events a stupid tragedy.”

        A tragedy is an unforseen event. This was a pre meditated war crime. Had you read the Goldstone report, you would know that by now.

      • Shingo
        October 2, 2010, 6:23 pm

        “The fact that RW doesn’t know is his ignorance, not ours. It’s history. It’s fact.”

        It’s not ignorance MRW, it is insufferable and blatant dishonesty. RW has had this explained to him countless times and he simply chooses to ignore it.

      • Shingo
        October 2, 2010, 6:25 pm

        Clear cut evidence that proves RW is a liar.

        Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
        link to

      • Richard Witty
        October 3, 2010, 10:18 am

        Everyone knows that there was an Israeli raid. That is not disputed.

        The question is whether the Israeli raid was in response to threats or not. In all cases, the threats likely could have been dealt with in other ways.

        There was a lull in Hamas hostilities in the beginning of December, or else the resumption of authorized shelling would not have been of any consequence.

        It was a decision on the part of Hamas to resume shelling on Israeli civilians in Sderot, and to escalate.

        The interpretation that the cease-fire ended on November 4 is a revision. During the months of November and December, both parties referred to the cease-fire as being in effect but tattering.

      • Citizen
        October 2, 2010, 2:13 pm

        Witty, you seldom directly state anything; you infer, imply, your true text is detected by regulars here by what you consistently leave out. So you didn’t use the word “broke” in your stance. Atta boy!

        “…Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

        “It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:

        “Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.

        The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.

        In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

      • Richard Witty
        October 3, 2010, 10:19 am

        Rohrshach test.

        You see what you want to see. Israel sees what it wants to see.

        If you see what incorporates both biased story, then you have a chance of getting it right. The gullible approach isn’t it though.

  12. Richard Witty
    October 2, 2010, 6:32 am

    Its too bad there aren’t journalistic standards of bigotry applied to Fox.

    • Avi
      October 2, 2010, 7:11 am

      Richard Witty October 2, 2010 at 6:32 am

      Its too bad there aren’t journalistic standards of bigotry applied to Fox.

      Or to you, or to Wolf Blitzer, or to Anderson Cooper.

  13. traintosiberia
    October 2, 2010, 7:29 am

    I knew the day Sanchez reminded Wolf Blitzer (while both of them were on the show ) that more people ,overwhelimngly more were against the behavior of Israel on Flotilla . as measured by emails to CNN’s show , it was all over for him.
    The question is this will the muslim countries stop CNN from broadcasting from thier countries until Sanchez is reisnatted? Will some muslim countries offer him a job as a nerwscaster or as an acdemics in one of the universities?
    I hope they do.

    • Saleema
      October 2, 2010, 10:11 am

      Sanchez should apply to independent Pakistani news channels. Many of their shows are in English. I’m sure he would be welcome for the sake of diversity and for getting an American perspective. He would have to move to Dubai though, as many news channels are based there so that the Paki govt can’t shut them down easily in times of turmoil. As Musharaf attempted to do while he was in power.

      He could also apply to Al-Jazeera. Turkey is another good one.

    • LeaNder
      October 2, 2010, 10:23 am

      Actually, I wonder if this is a bit racist, traintosiberia. (hmm, what made you choose this?)

      Why would “the Muslim” offer somebody a job that Phil more carefully than Patrick Lang suggests hasn’t got the brain? Don’t you think they have people of their own? I do have this impression.

      • MRW
        October 2, 2010, 2:53 pm

        LeaNder, is Pat Lang joking or uninformed? “Jon Stewart (noble scion of the house of Scottish kings).” That’s his stage name.

      • LeaNder
        October 2, 2010, 3:23 pm

        He is joking, obviously. But I was surprised he watches Stewart. I like Stewart too. Although obviously need to be alerted to some of his highlights over here.

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 8:58 pm

        i like jon stewart. it’s a good comedy show, what’s not to like. i don’t hold jon to the same standards i hold maddow. when i want tv news i go to democracy now, mosaic or al J.

      • Saleema
        October 2, 2010, 9:06 pm

        I should have written “could” and not “should.” I don’t know anything about Sanchez. Never watched him on CNN cuz I don’t watch CNN.

        Another poster asked if maybe he could get a job somewhere in the Muslim world as an anchor since he can no longer get one in anywhere else.
        So I was just listing some possibilities.

      • traintosiberia
        October 2, 2010, 9:41 pm


        No , there is no sinister undertone in my choice. I dont think BBC will hire him now. I dont expect any US media hiring him.
        If Arab country hires him, it would be a recognition of those non-Muslims ( jews and Christiand and a lot of Hindus ) who have over the years stood up for justice for Palestinians ,by Muslim countries This is long overdue. They should have done something for Helen Thomas also. Sanchez can refuse but atleast he will know that he will be missed by a lot of people.
        ( this idea of intelligence that being applied to Sanchez is full of hypocrisy. This shows that we estimate one’s intelligence by how much one can get away with . Then Ledeen, Gingrich, Schummer, Liberman and Kuthahammer,Krystol,Pipes,Krammer,Peretz are intelligent for the US could not punish them .In another word we are saying that through their sheer intelligence , they can get away with the most racist muderous antihuman comments on earth to repeat same inuendo before the next breakfast .Intellignce is not supporting their succeess.It is something else )

    • Frances
      October 4, 2010, 1:31 am

      Hell to the no! Sanchez is an idiot. He doesn’t deserved to be employed by any news network because he’s a flipping moron. Arab TV does not need to absorb every single casualty of the Israel lobby. Especially not my darling Al Jazeera. They have journalistic standards to uphold.

      I felt the same way about Octavia Nasr. Kinda sorry but no, she does not deserve a pity position.

  14. hughsansom
    October 2, 2010, 9:36 am

    As others have noted, if Sanchez had gone off on Arabs or Muslims, he would be facing no trouble at all now. But he did a more drastic and extreme Helen Thomas, so he’s gone. I’ve been a little out of touch recently, but my initial impression is that he certainly acted to justify being fired. Still, there are issues to be discussed.

    I note that ABC is running lots of ads for its “free and open” discussion of Islam. They would never DREAM of a special discussion of Judaism or Christianity (Christianity with an uninterrupted 2000-year history of mass-murder). Similarly, people go off on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims and suffer no consequences — even make fortunes, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. People go off on Jews and they are summarily executed.

    I do NOT defend the statements of Sanchez or Thomas (of course, the Pamela Geller/Alan Dershowitz-style bigots will accuse me of just that anyway). I DO assert — without qualification — that (alleged) bigots of all kinds have a RIGHT to the same standard of justice.

    Harvard coddles Peretz and Kramer . . . or Dershowitz (confirmed plagiarizer), Huntington (in his day), Mansfield (likewise), Mofaz, Gramajo, Halutz, Kissinger, and on and on and on. There is no denying what any of those think. They have aired their views again and again. But they are lauded — as is the viciously racist advocate of atrocities, Avigdor Lieberman — while Thomas and Sanchez are ousted in an instant.

    There is absolutely no pretending that there is a double-standard. But the Times, NPR, CNN, etc., continue to flatly deny it.

    • Citizen
      October 2, 2010, 2:20 pm

      Oucho, I see Krauthammer wheeling up to you to set you straight–Bill Krytol is pushing him. Get ready for some gentlemanly bigotry in the name of maiming it. Not to worry, Chris Matthews won’t cover the impending incident–remember he told us, “I don’t do the programming.”

    • MRW
      October 2, 2010, 2:56 pm

      I DO assert — without qualification — that (alleged) bigots of all kinds have a RIGHT to the same standard of justice.


  15. Jim Haygood
    October 2, 2010, 11:02 am

    ‘Maybe [Sanchez’s] tone was inappropriate, maybe he should have gotten out the kid gloves.’

    Actually, I thought Sanchez was using kid gloves, keeping his references as oblique as possible, and couching them in humor.

    It seems that under the zero tolerance double standard that prevails, the disproportionate Jewish presence and influence in the mainstream media can’t even be discussed … while immigration opponents can bash the living crap out of hispanics and their ‘anchor babies,’ with plenty of media exposure. Some minorities are more equal than others, eh?

    As Avi said, what better way to illustrate Jewish media executives’ hypersensitivity and de facto control than the extreme retaliation taken against any media personality who dares tread into this unspeakable taboo, of pointing out that the MSM executive suite does not ‘look like America’?

    • annie
      October 2, 2010, 9:05 pm

      the disproportionate Jewish presence and influence in the mainstream media can’t even be discussed

      jews could get away w/it. besides there’s a difference between ‘presence and influence’ and control. do i make a distinction? yes.

  16. Taxi
    October 2, 2010, 11:31 am

    Sanchez and Oliver Stone should have drinks together. And I should be the fly sipping the sides of their glasses.

  17. Dan Crowther
    October 2, 2010, 11:44 am

    A person ‘attacks’ a ‘powerless,’ ‘oppressed minority’ and gets canned? In America? Give me a F’ing break. Avi is 1000000000% right. Sanchez wasn’t being insensitive, ( which denotes that there needs to be a sort of sympathy showed) he spoke out against “the establishment.” Or ‘The Man.’ However you want to put it. And again, how does this stop anti-semitism? So, you say something about Jews, Jews get you fired. Wow, awesome, I want to hang out with those guys!!! I’d much rather have heard about some guy waiting outside the CNN studio’s for Sanchez- that’s something that pretty much everyone can understand. You make fun of Italians, your probably gonna run into an Italian guy who wants to kick your ass. Walk up to a black man and say the N word- your job is the least of your worries .(just examples). Getting someone fired from their job just reinforces stereotypes and fuels frustration and animosity. Im no JDL proponent, but at least they are down for settling things man to man. I respect that.

    • potsherd
      October 2, 2010, 2:23 pm

      Andrew Sullivan calls Sanchez’s remark “antisemitic”.
      link to

      • MRW
        October 2, 2010, 3:08 pm

        That’s because Andrew Sullivan didn’t listen to the radio interview (link available above), and he’s protecting his own blog. I’m sure he never read Joel Stein’s 2008 op-ed in the LA Times, wherein Stein says, “But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” Maybe he did. At least Greenwald has the balls to go after his slippery morality.
        link to

      • Antidote
        October 4, 2010, 12:02 pm

        “and he’s protecting his own blog”

        probably also true for MJ Rosenberg calling Sanchez’ remarks anti-semitic.

        So much for ‘Jews control the media’

      • MRW
        October 2, 2010, 3:22 pm

        Greenwald mops the floor with Sullivan’s logic and morality here:
        link to

    • Citizen
      October 2, 2010, 2:24 pm

      Why do that when you can “settle things” much more, for the longer term–and not even get your hands dirty?

      • Dan Crowther
        October 2, 2010, 5:31 pm

        Because it’s cowardly. I understand your point, and I know where you are coming from, but there is a difference between perceived and actual strength. Being known as “litigious” doesn’t make very many friends.

        I will use an example from my life- my friend Eli, who is Jewish, got into a fight at a summer camp when he was 13, and got his finger broken. His parents sued and won 2,500 bucks. Eli still laughs at that story. You know what the rest of his friends, me included, think about what he did? Nothing good. So yea, Eli got his dough and “settled things” without getting his hands dirty- but he lost respect from his friends as a result. What I am saying is that “settling things” the way it is currently done when remarks about Jews are involved, doesn’t settle anything. It is the antithesis of “manly” as it were. It doesn’t engender respect among men.
        Not to sound overly chauvinistic- but as a man, the idea of belonging to a group that needs to be protected is not to appealing.
        Now, did my friend Eli go about it that way “because he was Jewish?” No. Not at all. But I would certainly say that he and his family went the route they went because they viewed the other kid as just that, “other.”

      • potsherd
        October 2, 2010, 7:12 pm

        You mean, they woudn’t have sued if it were a Jewish kid?

      • Dan Crowther
        October 2, 2010, 8:19 pm

        Good question. I don’t know. I will say this though, Eli went to a Jewish summer camp after that.

        The point I was trying to make ( and thanks potsherd for your comment, seriously) is that suing someone, or forcing a resignation or having someone fired is the worst way to change the perception of a people.

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 9:17 pm

        i’ve watched judge judy, lots of people sue for medical expenses. if you don’t have health insurance and someone intentionally screws you over why not sue them if they don’t offer to pay for it? that’s not jewish, that’s what courts are for. usually tho if you get hurt at camp the camp should have insurance even it if is in a fight because kids should be supervised. if i sent my kid of to camp and he came back w/a broken limb i wouldn’t expect it to come out of my pocket. my home is insured, if someone gets hurt on my property my insurance covers it.

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 9:25 pm

        Eli got his dough and “settled things” without getting his hands dirty- but he lost respect from his friends as a result.

        the more i think about this the weirder it is. especially in light of your earlier jdl comment. i don’t ‘respect’ people who ‘settle’ things by sending a thug after someone. i would only go that route if i felt threatened, couldn’t resolve it otherwise and/or the law wouldn’t protect me or my child. definitely a last resort.

      • Dan Crowther
        October 2, 2010, 9:27 pm


        I think my last remark, regarding “other” was made in haste. As to the family not suing if the other kid was Jewish- like I said, I can’t say for sure- but now that I have thought about it a bit more, yes; I think they would have.

        As a objective observer, it seems like going the legal route is more accepted generally among Jews than other groups- if I can say that without the Kahanists knocking on my door.

        But I do think that litigiousness is easily explained. And “otherness” is definitely involved. Things that are taboo among members of a community or a neighborhood suddenly aren’t when you are part of a group that views the “other” 99.8% of the population as “other.” If you don’t care about the acceptance or the respect of other people, what do you care if suing someone or having someone fired makes you look like a cowardly a-hole? If your only gonna hang with Jews anyway, what’s it to you?

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 9:51 pm

        it seems like going the legal route is more accepted generally among Jews than other groups- if I can say that without the Kahanists knocking on my door.

        something tells me statistics could back this allegation up simply by checking out what ethnic group takes fuller advantage of small claims court (f any do). i’ve never heard of this before, frankly it sounds rather nuts to me. do you think judge judy’s producers purposely balance cases based on ethnicity to hide the ‘reality’ most claimants in the american justice system are jewish?

      • eljay
        October 2, 2010, 9:52 pm

        >> The point I was trying to make … is that suing someone, or forcing a resignation or having someone fired is the worst way to change the perception of a people.

        It’s what I keep trying to tell “humanists”: The worst way for Israel to make people believe that it is not an aggressor, occupier, colonizer, thief and murderer is for it to continue to engage in aggression, occupation, colonialism, theft and murder. Especially when it has the power to stop all of it immediately, completely and forever.

      • annie
        October 2, 2010, 9:53 pm

        jeez ‘if’ any do. sorry, it seems like every post i write lately has at least one screw up.

      • Dan Crowther
        October 3, 2010, 12:21 pm


        My original point was never about the “litigiousness” of Jewish people- if you go back to my original post- it does mention my friend is jewish- but is more about what is lost when legal punitive action is taken, or when a group moves to have someone blackballed or fired- all in regards to the sanchez firing. My friend sued instead “just getting beaten up” and yes, he lost a bit of respect as a result. As for my “settling things” comment, it was in response to citizen. I said I wasn’t a JDL proponent, and don’t advocate violence- I just don’t like to see these kinds of actions being taken- so would I really like to see a “JDL thug outside his door” no, no I wouldn’t. I just think going this route is a bad idea and I can see how it might stem from irrational thoughts about “extermination” which Phil has been writing about- if you think your going to be exterminated, your probably not going to be all that close to the people you think are going to exterminate you, and when you aren’t friends with people, joking around or talking about race ethnicity, religion is pretty much off-limits- to me, this whole sitation stems from the divisions in society. When you are friends with people, and think that you are all on equal footing, comments like sanchez made are brushed aside.

        I have to say, your using Judge Judy as an example of a lack of Jewish “litigiousness” is kind of funny, as she herself is Jewish. And a bigtime Zionist too. I know you were talking about the people in her court, but I did chuckle for a second.

        I also think you missed my rationale for why a minority group like Jews might be more willing to use the courts. I don’t see how that could be taken as anti-semitic.

      • Dan Crowther
        October 3, 2010, 12:24 pm

        you brought up judge judy- i don’t watch. i never said anything about judge judy- or about it’s representing anything. your comment makes no sense.

      • Citizen
        October 4, 2010, 2:35 am

        Growing up, I was the new kid on the block in various types of neighborhoods; I had to fight or look forward to constant bulling, in some places by ethnic gangs. My father grew up in a small white lower middle class town in NJ embued with wholesome ideas of defending oneself physically if threatened–fighting “fair n square” as if one were in a boxing ring. As to when I was bullied by an ethnic gang with chains and more, or a white fratboy gang, my father’s advice remained the same: “Ya gotta take ’em on one at a time.” As a teen ager in the US Army most guys I knew also had the view you fight your own battles, matching fist for fist, etc “mano to mano.” After the army, as I worked towards higher education through undergrad and professional diploma, the people I met, nearly always from higher socio-economic families than my own, would never dream of fighting “man to man” and if anyone threatened them physically (very rare as they moved in pc circles) they would respond with threat of a law suit to take the irritant “to the cleaners.” Hollywood teen movies are filled with macho dreams, but that’s where it ends unless you take it seriously. When I worked in the steel mills of South Chicago nobody would ever dream of suing someone due to assault or battery–personal honor demanded you meet fist with fist; if weapons were used, you could up the anti of weapons if you were small, relatively puny, and if it was a bunch of bullies or a gang, you enlisted your buddies to help you–

  18. David Seaton
    October 2, 2010, 12:01 pm

    One of the best comments I have seen on this issue comes from one Snuffysmith over at Talking Points memo, I quote:

    Sanchez: Jews control the media
    Jews: No we don’t. BTW, you’re fired. LOL

    I think that sums the whole thing up pretty well.

    • Antidote
      October 3, 2010, 8:16 pm

      An even better comment from a Haaretz-reader, identified as ‘Jack in Miami’:

      “twist in the wind, anti-semites. we Jews are the world’s most successful, powerful minority. We have owned and controlled the media for 120 years in America, including the Great Gray Lady , the New York Times. we invented Hollywood, radio broadcast and TV. what else is a minority to do when it is restricted. Mr. Sanchez was just plain stupid, his Jewish boss, Mr. Klein, just fired BTW, gave him a marvelous opportunity, and he blew it by repeating the same tired old anti-Semitic remarks.”

      34 thumbs up, 34 down. I’m still in stitches, and passed on the vote.

      • potsherd
        October 3, 2010, 9:00 pm


      • Antidote
        October 4, 2010, 12:13 pm

        potsherd: no, not even if you’re a Jew, or at least not beyond anonymous talkbacks, or in the privacy of your home. Remember how Netanyahu (the 2001 interview) bragged about how easily America is moved, and how he’s got them all under control. I’d say: that’s what Israelis want to hear, and that’s what an Israeli politician will tell them, whether true or not, and whether either party actually believes it or not. The video was shot in an Israeli home and obviously neither expected nor intended to go viral, or Netanyahu would never had said that. Also note the aside in the reader’s comment I quoted: the firing of Klein. Apparently some Jews have less control than others, or: who or what controls Klein?

  19. potsherd
    October 2, 2010, 12:46 pm

    Remember this: link to

    CNN has fired a senior editor for Middle East news after she published a Twitter message that said she respected a Lebanese Shi’ite cleric branded a terrorist by the United States, U.S. and British media said on Thursday.

    Do we see a pattern?

    • Citizen
      October 2, 2010, 2:30 pm

      Yeah, if you say anything critical of Israeli activity on cable news shows you will pay the price. link to

      • Citizen
        October 2, 2010, 2:33 pm

        Funny how Stewart is always talking about “the Man” as if he’s not that man. He thinks he’s funny, but he tops all his own semi-witty jokes merely by being himself.

      • sherbrsi
        October 2, 2010, 11:12 pm

        Stewart is a slightly more moderate, but just as irritating and annoyingly incapable of self-inquiry, as the other self-styled progressive-except-Palestine liberal commentator – Bill Maher.

      • lysias
        October 3, 2010, 10:53 am

        Neither Sanchez nor that CNN senior editor said what they said on a cable news show, though, did they?

      • Antidote
        October 3, 2010, 9:20 pm

        Exactly, lysias, and a lot of arguments justifying their firing completely miss that point. Add Helen Thomas, who was getting in (or out?) of a taxi at the WH. I think it’s important: everybody knows certain rules apply if you are acting in a professional role, but a radio interview with a comedian, a twitter message, an impromptu ‘interview’ (ambush journalism, really) – if that can get you fired in an instant it scares and muzzles people, and breeds resentment.

        Reminds me that Helen Thomas, in a radio interview prior to her running into that rabbi and his video going viral, made the point that while the web & blogosphere have changed and expanded the mediascape in many beneficial ways, they also provide the means to completely destroy people for one single controversial or offensive remark. It’s like you constantly have to watch what you say, and where or to whom you say it. Is the US going GDR?

        link to

  20. lyn117
    October 2, 2010, 4:32 pm

    Educated “elites” or snobby intellectuals ( college-educated people who get their knowledge from esoteric books) looking down on poor hard-working people (who have common sense gained from the real world) is a common theme by right-wing talk show hosts. I don’t know whether it taps into an inferiority complex regarding people’s intellect or not, I have heard left-wing talk show hosts call people who fall for the right-wing lines stupid. I think Sanchez was wrong to say Jon Stewart making fun of tea-partiers “prejudicial” though. A) tea-partiers aren’t the uneducated hard-working folk they’re made out to be, b) however much you might dislike it, it’s a comedian’s job to make fun of people c) Bill Maher’s the bigot, and he’s not even funny. To be sure, some of Jon’s Stewart’s comedy does reflect the prejudices of our times – like those against “Islamists” and he does kind of play with his guests to a certain extent.

    • kapok
      October 2, 2010, 8:32 pm

      I remember he had that Bush’s blonde press flack on, forget her name. Stewart rolled over on his back like a puppy.

    • Antidote
      October 4, 2010, 12:28 pm

      I think Sanchez was right. True, as you say, much if not most of Stewart’s condescension — making fun of people and hitting below the belt – simply comes with his profession. But left-wing intellectuals and liberals are as prone to be snobby as their right-wing counterparts, and out of touch with ‘poor hard-working people’. It’s irrelevant whether the tea-party people are stupid or educated (not the same thing, of course) or not. Stupid and/or uneducated people have rights, too.

  21. sherbrsi
    October 2, 2010, 11:09 pm

    As for his recent comments about Jews not being an oppressed minority and Jews owning the television networks– it seems to me that these are legitimate subjects for discussion. Maybe his tone was inappropriate, maybe he should have gotten out the kid gloves.

    Too late for that. The subject of Israel, Zionism and its cult-like support from elite American Jews is a closed book to the gentile world, and as your wife confirmed, something only to be discussed by the “insiders.” No where is this more enforced than in America, and its media. It defies any sort of handling, all the while Islamophobia and Arab racism is let rampant, which leads to the opposition of Islamic community centres and planned Quran burnings.

    The system has been rigged, and Sanchez has only recognized its obvious symptoms, for which he was immediately censured. His removal was not the confirmation of his directness in referring to the problem, but the fact that he even addressed it.

  22. MHughes976
    October 3, 2010, 10:26 am

    ‘Minority status’ clearly means something different for a minority whose numbers are few and whose typical members are prosperous and a minority which is quite large and whose typical members are lowly, some painfully poor.
    And control of the media is indeed a legitimate subject for discussion.

  23. Danaa
    October 3, 2010, 2:38 pm

    Has anyone mentioned yet that what Sanchez said about Stewart has a ring of truth about it? I would never have noticed if someone who’s not jewish did not bring it to my attention. Jon Stewart not only alludes to the fact he is jewish often enough, his show is replete with jewish inside jokes, yiddish cross-references, put-downs of “stupid” under-educated political ingenues, and sometimes guests that one can’t figure out why they are on, other than as part of some kind of a mysterious entertainment-insider’s tribal protection racket (yes, I am thinking of the 2 appearances I saw by one Bill Krystol – where affably he fends the Stewart Jabs, though for what reason he be on, it’s hard to fathom).

    Yes, Jon did bring Anna Balzer on with Barghoutti, but for that he was forced to pay penance with that inane “skit” about hamas children shows – one of the unfunniest segments ever. He also did a critical show about Gaza at the time of the bombing-of-the-children, for which he is still forced to pay with numerous book peddlings, most written by Jewish people, and the odd guest appearance, some singularly peculiar .

    Having aid that, none of us knows where or what does Jon Stewart really feel. As a comedian, he lives and works at the mercy of the privileged, mostly Jewish producers’ and funders’ club, which populates the entertainment business and network cables in droves. Sanchez may have gotten fired for drawing attention to the elephant in the room, but Stewart no doubt does what he has to do to stay on the air. Is he really bigoted, e.g., a zionist-at-heart (and zionism may well be a form of racism couched by high-minded words about “homeland” and “refuge”)? Who knows? . I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Stewart, personally, is ambivalent about all things Israel. What is obvious is that he i far from ambivalent about all thing jewish, a he seems to dots on his “sophisticated” New York city “milieu”, and does have a somewhat condescending attitude about the backwoods hinterlands. I realize, of course, that comedians draw on what they know. Black comedians dot on their blackness and gays on their gayness. Everything is “material” to a comedian, the more ethnic the better. But they don’t get to do “political” shows like Stewart, do they?

    Complicated? not really. Privilege is a privilege does. But it would be nice if more attention was drawn to the actual Sanchez statement about the Stewart show, because it has such traction among progressives.

    • Avi
      October 3, 2010, 9:29 pm

      Has anyone mentioned yet that what Sanchez said about Stewart has a ring of truth about it? I would never have noticed if someone who’s not jewish did not bring it to my attention. Jon Stewart not only alludes to the fact he is jewish often enough, his show is replete with jewish inside jokes, yiddish cross-references, put-downs of “stupid” under-educated political ingenues, and sometimes guests that one can’t figure out why they are on, other than as part of some kind of a mysterious entertainment-insider’s tribal protection racket (yes, I am thinking of the 2 appearances I saw by one Bill Krystol – where affably he fends the Stewart Jabs, though for what reason he be on, it’s hard to fathom).

      I said that a few times. But, I can’t get no respect ’round here when I bring up Jon Stewart, the vanguard of American progressive liberalism or something ;)

      Stewart conducts the show as though 99.9% of his audience are New York Jews.

      • Danaa
        October 3, 2010, 10:23 pm

        I just noticed antidote above said much the same thing, sort of. And Jeff Blankfort recounted the “Let’s kick Sanchez around” fun they were all having. Sounds sick to me.

        “Stewart conducts the show as though 99.9% of his audience are New York Jews”

        Exactly. And it goes down like a ton of lead bricks in Texas and the Carolina’s for example, not to mention Montana and Missouri.

        Lately, I don’t find him all that funny, kind of like he is struggling for material……there are skits that are downright yawn-inducing and the endless beating up on the latest clown from the right is getting old.

        Unfortunately, like Rachel Maddow, Stewart has come to reflect not the progressive sensibilities but the East Coast liberal jewish ones, which frankly sound awfully ingrown and tone deaf to me lately. And I am a died-in-the-wool (is that the right expressions?) progressive. I think I like my out-west techno-progressives better. Same complaints, but a lot less navel gazing….

    • yonira
      October 3, 2010, 11:14 pm

      What he said may well be true, but as rule you don’t say the Jews control the media without expecting some ill results.

  24. Jeffrey Blankfort
    October 3, 2010, 4:46 pm

    What do all the following unlikely grouping have in common? Rev. Billy Graham, Richard Nixon, Oliver Stone, and Rick Sanchez have in common?
    They all recognized that the US media is largely controlled by Jews (NOT “the Jews”) as anyone with their eyes and ears open has by now readily observed and the lone exception among the major players, Rupert Murdoch, is as shamelessly pro-Likud as the most right-wing among them as his Fox News, Wall Street Journal and NY Post clearly demonstrate.

    When it was revealed that Graham, on a visit to the White House, had told Nixon (who was taping every word said in his office) that when he was re-elected, he needed to break “the Jewish stranglehold on the media,” he was forced to tearfully apologize. Efforts to get Nixon who had agreed with him to also apologize failed since he had already gone to meet his maker.

    Publicly, Graham made much of his friendships with Jewish leaders. But in the Nixon tapes, he was recorded as saying: “A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.”

    “You must not let them know,” replies Nixon.

    When Mr. Graham asserts that Jewish people control the news media, and that their “stranglehold needs to be broken,” Nixon asks, “You believe that?”

    “Yes, sir,” says Mr. Graham.

    “Oh, boy. So do I,” says Nixon. “I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

    “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

    The media response to the revelation was predictable. No one, at least not publicly, pointed out that these two men were both in a better position to know who controlled the media than your average citizen but nobody had the guts to question the truth of their conviction.

    At the time of the revelation, in 2002, using the NY Times, the Jewish weekly Forward and the Jewish press,I decided to make a list of who was who in the media and almost every significant name I came up with at every level just happened to be Jewish, not necessarily hardcore Zionist, but definitely not among the critics of Israel, Jewish or otherwise, who I did not include in this list. After concluding that Graham and Nixon knew what they were talking about, even though I still found both men odious, I gave it up although I still update it from time to time.

    Chomsky gets around acknowledging the fact that virtually all the syndicated columnists who write about international affairs are Jewish and pro-Israel by referring to them as “the intelligentsia,” but it’s a flimsy disguise since everyone knows who he is referring to even if they won’t admit it. Some of the non-Jews who do write on international affairs, such as George Will, are solidly in the Likud camp.

    The fact of the matter is that determining how the US media treats Israel as been uppermost on the Zionist agenda since the state was declared as was revealed in the Fulbright hearings in 1963 and it is clear that they achieved domination over what we see, hear, and read in the MSM, long ago.

    Much of the documentation from 1963, though public at the time was suppressed until this year, thanks to the pressure of the Zionists, but now it has been released to the National Archives where Grant Smith of IRmep has dredged it out and put “the proof of the pudding” on his excellent web site, The Israel Lobby Archives link to .

  25. Jeffrey Blankfort
    October 3, 2010, 8:39 pm

    There’s more. Last night Jon Stewart and Comedy Central had an event last night where Stewart was joined in the piling on of Rick Sanchez by those great champions of free speech, David Letterman and Tom Brokaw.
    From this link: link to here’s this excerpt:

    Opening the three-hour taping, Stewart suggested that donors feeling guilty about something should pony up the bucks for the benefit’s good cause, raising funds to educate autistic children: “If you dented a car, $50. If you cheated on something to get ahead, $500. And if you went on radio and said Jews run the media, in that case you better hold onto your money,” he said. Surprise guest David Letterman got into the act, explaining he was in Manhattan over the weekend helping Sanchez “clean out his office,” and even former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw joked that he and Stewart had more in common than each thought: “In junior high I didn’t want to sit next to Rick Sanchez either.”

    Does anyone think Brokaw who did not attend junior high with Sanchez will be criticized in the media for a statement that was patently racist?

    • Antidote
      October 3, 2010, 9:40 pm

      Must feel good to kick people when they’re down. To confirm while they’re at it that Sanchez was right about their snobbish condescension and racial bigotry. Stewart further mocked Sanchez at that event by saying: ‘He only has to apologize, and we’ll hire him back’. Clever, and more of the same.

      • potsherd
        October 3, 2010, 11:03 pm

        That would be the “we” that isn’t in control?

    • yonira
      October 3, 2010, 11:19 pm

      In junior high I didn’t want to sit next to Rick Sanchez either.”

      How on earth is that racist?

  26. Antidote
    October 4, 2010, 11:08 am

    A few months ago, Chomsky said the US feels like the Weimar Republic, and all it would take is some charismatic individual to appeal to and mobilize the growing frustration and resentment of Americans (Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement come to mind)

    link to

    A few links about the Weimar Republic (mocked as the ‘Judenrepublik’ at the time, and regarding the influence of Jewish and Zionist power – both factual and imaginary – on the rise of Hitler and anti-semitism (‘The Jews are our misfortune’) in Weimar Germany

    link to
    link to

    No, I don’t see another Holocaust coming in the US or elsewhere. But if the view takes hold that Israel is a liability to US security, and American Jews, via their domestic political and economic power and their support for Israel are working to the detriment of other minorities in the US and the country at large, including its international standing, it could, for instance, became a liability to be Jewish and run for public office. And anti-semitism would manifest itself in increasing hostility and violence against the majority of American Jews who are neither rich nor powerful. Americans are arguably no less prone to simplification, generalization and scape-goating than Germans were – then and now. See Islamophobia. One major difference between the Weimar Republic and the US (and Germany today) is that the former was not a multi-ethnic society. Cosmopolitan centers such as Berlin notwithstanding, German Jewish were the only significant ethnic/religious minority (with full citizenship status) in the WR, and, like the Germans, in the process of reinventing their ethnic and cultural identity, both within and against Zionism.

    link to
    link to

  27. lysias
    October 4, 2010, 2:01 pm

    An interview with Jon Stewart (recorded last week) is about to be broadcast on the NPR show Fresh Air.

    • lysias
      October 4, 2010, 2:07 pm

      The interview, interestingly, was conducted at the 92nd St. Y.

      • lysias
        October 4, 2010, 2:19 pm

        Terry Gross, the host of Fresh Air, said the interview was conducted before the flap over Rick Sanchez, so I guess that will not be discussed in the interview.

        Stewart has already cracked a lot of Jewish jokes. He said the 92nd St. Y was the only venue where the jokes would be understood.

  28. hophmi
    October 5, 2010, 7:02 am

    “Rohrshach test.

    You see what you want to see.”

    If ever there was a rohrshach test, it’s this story. Sanchez, of course, never mentioned Israel, and was fired mostly because he called his bosses part of the white liberal establishment who he feels condescends to him. He never mentioned Israel once, but everyone here seems to think that he was talking about. He wasn’t. Most of you want to believe that the guy made made an antisemitic comment that you all want to support as good Israel-bashers when in fact what he was talking about was something else entirely.

    You all seem to believe that “white liberal establishment” equals Jewish.

Leave a Reply