Erstellt am: 8. 10. 2009 - 14:12 Uhr
Wanted and Desired
The two hot topics dominating the media outlets in the US right now are called Roman Polanksi and David Letterman. Polanski is, of course, making headlines because of his recent arrest after over thirty years on the lam. Discussed in equal measures and almost the same breath is Late Show host David Letterman, who, by way of an extortion case against him, ended up revealing his sexual affairs with co-workers. Both cases are much more complex than the mere sex involved, but it seems that only this point is what the media choses to focus on. Polanski, who was officially charged with "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and whose current legal problems stem from the bureaucratic nightmare associated with the trial and his subsequent flight, ist being touted as a raging, ruthless pedophile sex offender. And Letterman finds himself in a similar sex abuser predicament, as people ignore the fact that his case has him as the victim and not the perpetrator. The public is condemming his admitted sexual relations with female members of his staff and concludes that these women were coerced into doing these acts with their boss.
Wait a minute. I don’t want to make light of any form of "sexual misconduct". But it fascinates me, how much the American media manages to obscure and obfuscate what really happened, in order to serve their own ratings-hungry fantasies. Scandals, especially those involving powerful men, are, after all, the source of good ratings, and in such a case it’s obviously okay to mistake emotion for fact. The fact that a newscaster is a figure people feel the need to trust and should therefore think twice before spouting an unwarranted fact or a contentious opinion, is ignored.
The Polanski problem is more than complicated, and I won’t try to explain it thoroughly or accurately here. I’ll leave that up to the documentary "Wanted & Desired" which gives an unbiased overview of the entire muddled situation. What I do know for a fact ist that Polanski’s current problems stem from unprecedented actions regarding the trial and the fact that he fled the country before he received his final sentencing. Sure, that’s something that needs to be cleared up and dealt with, but it doesn’t mean that the entire trial, which had already reached a conviction, needs to be reopened. And especially not by the public. But the US media is up and at ’em, with an insatiable appetite. Even though the victim Samantha Geimer forgave Polanski publicly in 2003, the media is parading around with calls to "think of the victim" and acts as if the crime was committed merely a few months ago and the wounds are still open. In the Honolulu Star Bulletin Gmeiner said in 2003: "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." But apprently he hasn’t paid up his debts to the TV stations of this country just yet.
Lawyer Hans Geiger makes an accurate point in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung: "Nach 33 Jahren kann die bis anhin unterlassene Abklärung der tatbeständlichen Vorgänge infolge ganz erheblicher Beweisschwierigkeiten nicht mehr nachgeholt werden. Ein gerechtes Urteil wäre mit anderen Worten gar nicht mehr möglich, weil Belastungs- und Entlastungsbeweise durch den langen Zeitablauf eine echte Wahrheitsfindung verunmöglichen würden. Es fehlten stichhaltige Anhaltspunkte für eine Verurteilung, und somit bestünde die reale Gefahr von Fehlentscheiden aus Emotionen und unter dem Druck der Öffentlichkeit. Einem solchen unwürdigen Prozedere darf niemand ausgesetzt werden." (via Süddeutsche Zeitung)
Whether or not Polanski has to face another trial, he is already undergoing a kafkaesque version of one in the media, without regards to factual information or the truth.
Even in the most renowned newspapers, the excitement around such a cause celebre and the fear of holding a dissenting opinion win out over fair journalism. Take for instance this bit from the Wall Street Journal: „We need not take the remonstrations of the French too seriously. They have a long history of forgiving their own artists for pretty much anything...". The once highly regarded journalist Cokie Roberts gave her take on the case to ABC News as this: "As far as I'm concerned, just take him out and shoot him." Read more at: huffingtonpost.com
These are the voices of the US media elite. One can only imagine what is going on in the unmoderated and uncensored blogs on the internet.
Whoopi Goldberg is the only liberal-oriented host on the estrogen fueled kaffeeklatsch show "The View". In regards to Polanski she let out the rather ill-phrased, but in my opinion understandable, quote that it wasn’t "rape-rape" what the director was accused of. That resulted in a pretty severe backlash that seemingly brought her one step closer to the edge of being fired. Three strikes, you’re out, afterall, and especially if you say something that mainstream America does not want to hear. After a large number of Hollywood filmmakers and producers got together to sign a petition supporting Polanski, a ripple of discontent went through the media. Of course someone like Woody Allen would sign something like that, suits his own purposes afterall. And if Harvey Weinstein, one of the most well known producers, signs a petition for Polanski, well then he must just be trying to cover up for some skeletons in his own closet. On message boards and in forums people are honestly debating the ethics of continuing to watch the films of the people who signed the so-called black list.
Journalists and show hosts are letting off some truly outrageous quotes. Shock value is ruling the airwaves and reality is slowly drifting out of our grasp. Unless you’re going to figure the extensive backstory yourself, painstakingly, you will only be severely misinformed by what you see on television these days. It has gone to an exteme with the Polanski/Letterman cases. Polanski's negative image has been set in stone, and regardless of what actually happens in his legal matters, he will have to seriously fear for his life in this country from now on. The pack is hungry and needs to feed.
David Letterman’s current coverage in the media is on an equally bad level, even though no criminal charges have been pressed against him. It all started when Letterman was approached by the producer of another CBS show: if the talk show host wouldn’t pay up $2m dollars, the producer would spill the beans on Letterman’s alleged debauched behaviour with fellow staff members. In order to steal the media’s thunder, Letterman addressed his own audience after going to the police to report the case. He admitted to having slept with several of his employees, and all of it was done so legally, willingly and without breaking any laws. The actual crime was done to Letterman, but the American media got hung up on the sex part. What? People having sex with people they met at the office? A powerful boss involved with women on his staff? Unheard of!
Instantly, the misogynist label was slapped on Letterman. Of course he did this only to abuse his power and use the women. Joy Behar, who has her own show on the CNN sister network Headline News, held a tirade against Letterman last night, completely igonoring the actual case and going off on a tangent: "Women shouldn’t have to sleep with the boss to get ahead in the company. If you’re going to canoodle with someone in the office, don’t do it with a subordinate, do it with an equal."
Remember, Letterman is the victim of a crime here and these conclusions about motivations as to why people sleep with each other remain mere guesses, not facts,
Furthermore, panels on CNN and the like are seriously debating wether or not David Letterman has a psychological problem (we’re just a step away from psychopath here, I tell you!) causing him to choose lowly staff members instead of the beautiful celebrity women who were guests on his show night after night. Is this for real? It’s beginning to sound as if people are blaming the victim, in this case Letterman, for the crime committed against him.
None of these women that Letterman has had affairs with have come forward, let alone complained of sexual harrassment. There are no signs that the boss ever abused his power, and besides, where does everyone get the idea from that these were naive interns that Letterman was involved with? But, as the clichee will have it, Letterman becomes the tyrant. I’m a strong feminist and I see absolutely nothing wrong with his conduct. Why is it a problem for anyone if the women got what they wanted? If we’re going to shed a light on and put an end to every inter-office romance in this counry, be they secret or not, we’d have our work cut out for us.
Greta van Sustren, talkshow queen on the conservative and infamous Fox News, highlights the incredible double standard the media lives by on her own show: „I think it's, you know, bad what David Letterman did (...),with employees who are of lesser stature in the organization with him, but I also blame the women. (...) Of course, I met my husband of some 30 years at work, so I might -- I mean, things have changed a little bit, but anyway...“
In both cases, we keep hearing about how rich these men in question are. How they shouldn’t receive better treatment by anyone because they’re well off and could pay for top notch lawyers. Of course they shouldn’t, but it also shouldn’t be a reason to be as harsh and relentless on them without the use of morals as the media has been. There’s a strange feeling of jealousy and injustice creeping in, especially in the Letterman case. Some news commentator actually went as far as to say that Letterman should have just paid his extortionist, because the $2m he wanted wouldn’t really put a dent in his wallet with a yearly income of $30m.
Jim Wooten of the Atlanta Constituion Journal writes disapprovingly: „Much of Hollywood has no clue about the nation’s values.“.
Once an opinion is formed it can’t be changed or rectified, the public is indoctrinated with it thanks to 24/7 television. The nation’s values are based on generalisations and conclusions far from reality, and combined with a relentless hypocrisy it leads to a huge chasm between what happens in our own home and what we allow those in the spotlight. If those in the entertainment industry shouldn’t be rewarded just for being in the position that they are in, they also shouldn’t face harsher punishment because of their fame. Celebrities aren’t automatically role models and don’t hold some higher moral responsibility than the average person. They should be recognized for their talents and their work, but not put under extreme scrutiny and public ridicule when they show a sign of human fallibility. What concerns me is not the right or wrong of these situtations, but the way the news media treats them with such relentless bloodthirst. Time to switch off and tune into reality.
Kommentieren
