I feel sorry for Rick Sanchez.
And it's not because I don't think what he said was anti-Semitic. It was. It was also petty and ugly, calling the media's most influential liberal, Jon Stewart, racially prejudiced when he clearly is about as unprejudiced and non-parochial as anyone can be. (Stewart is, in my opinion, the very best thing about the mainstream media. No competition either).
Nonetheless, I feel bad for Sanchez because his attack on Stewart and Jews was not the adult Sanchez talking but the hurt Latino immigrant child who has always felt (rightly or wrongly) that white America looked down on him.
That is how it must have been for him at 6. And he still can't get over it.
He thinks that when people like Jon Stewart see him they see a dumb Latino who should be cleaning tables. He's wrong. They see a smart, provocative and movie-star handsome guy who has it all, and got it through hard work (and luck too, like everyone).
As a society, we need to understand that minority kids of all kinds (and the white poor as well) are constantly stripped of their self-worth by a society that still squashes people who are "different." That poor kid who jumped off the George Washington Bridge the other day -- essentially driven off the bridge by hate -- testifies to what an ugly country we can be to children who don't fit in.
And many of them never get over it. After all, if Rick Sanchez is still hurting so badly, imagine all those immigrant kids with accents, or kids from the hood or Appalachia or who are taunted for being gay or Jewish or Jehovah's Witness or whatever. This is a wonderful country for those who fit in. For the others, it's a hell that saps their souls.
Sanchez should be allowed to apologize and move on. One thing I'm sure of, Jon Stewart understands where Sanchez is coming from. He, too, can see the hurt boy in the man. After all, it's no picnic being a 5'7" tall Jew either.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Brian Levin, J.D.: Rick Sanchez and the Right to be Wrong
He did retract the word "bigot" and I believe it is difficult to make a complicated point in that type of setting.
Here's how I identify with what Sanchez was saying: I am not Latino, but I am a white guy who has lived in Georgia my whole life, and I went to public school, and I have never worked in NYC. I know Colbert is from South Carolina, and I notice that he seems to avoid the easy jokes about people from the South. Stewart doesn't. And I doubt Stewart has any interest in anything I have to say or any of my opinions. He probably would assume that I am a Republican and supported Mitt Romney for president, and he would make a joke about my accent and turn away.
There are three types of liberals: the elitist media types, the West-Coast granolas, and the progressive Southern Democrats. As between the three, I believe the third type do most of the heavy lifting at a grass roots level and actually display a concern and respect for others instead of just those who move in their circle.
If Sanchez thinks its tough being Latino, try being a special ed child with a speech defect. You are constantly marginalized, and minimized...by even your own family. So you would think the very LAST thing such a kid would do is seek the limelight. And you'd be wrong. I have such a child, now a young woman who performs stand up comedy. The sheer cojones it took her to get in front of a crowd for the first time still leaves me breathless. Her refusal to be limited due to the expectations (or the lack thereof) of others? Priceless.
Mr. Sanchez, it only looks like other people have it easy. Stop scowling...it makes lines!
There's so much cruelty on the internet - we behave towards each other on the internet the way we behave towards each other on the road: We treat each other like inhuman objects.
I don't take delight in car crashes, and I don't take delight in personal crashes, either. This whole thing is just sad.
Face it, unfortunately race still matters in society. Let's just be clear about that from the start.
There's a huge racially determined double standard. Sanchez clearly isn't a very bright bulb, and yes, there's obviously some bigotry there, but compare him to other whiter "journatainers" on the boob tube, like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. They are equally ignorant and clueless, and twice as bigotted. Why are they still employed? How long will it take? Why do their employers tolerate them so much more? I know it's about ratings and dollars, but presumably, Sanchez was let go due to his comments not ratings.
CNN doesn't tolerate overt racism from its on air staff, Fox News does
... not that I'm a huge fan of CNN, but they are indisputably better than Fox News
Why do some people think it important or a "legitimate" area for discussion (including commenters here)? How is it legitmate?
Shouldn't we count how many Christians are in the upper reaches while we're at it? Or, my god, atheists?!
Let's focus on the ideas that the networks promote. Let's look at who gets on air and who does not. Let's make sure the hiring and firing practices are fair. Let's look at real issues and not be sidetracked by ancient hatreds.
The vast majority of Americans thought and/or still think that 9/11 was the work of Iraq and they watch their evening news. I personally have not encountered anyone that knows what I am talking about when I mention Building 7. Maybe I'm just paranoid but it seems to me that a 42 story skyscraper in New York City falling down would be big news.
How do you go about looking to see who or what gets on the air and who or what does not? And if you do detect an agenda, as many people have, why is it not a legitimate area for discussion?
Nefarious? Not exactly. But the problem is that those who control the media are controlling public opinion of the country (and thus public policy) by filtering what information gets disseminated and in what context.
The pro-Israeli propaganda is allowed to suppress all dissent here because Jewish supporters here know that without the US government's support (i.e. public sentiment), Israel would not be able to continue its occupation, suppression, and terrorization of the Palestinian people.
It cannot be argued that the report condemning the execution of 9 civilians on the recent Gaza flotilla was not suppressed here. By cutting off the flow of information, the debate is narrowly framed to always present Israel as a just aggressor, no matter how many innocent Palestinian women and children are starving or killed.
You can argue quite legitimately that our government often refrains from criticizing Israel, an old ally that administrations (Republican and Democratic) see as an important and friendly buffer in the middle of oil rich countries. They refrain from criticizing Saudi Arabia too.
Sure, there's a pro-Israeli lobby. I'm more afraid of lobbyISTs, of all persuasions.
I'm hearing some serious prejudice and paranoia around here...
Maybe he was offered the opportunity and declined.
I feel some sympathy for his job loss, but the issue and the response are important and not easily put to bed.
What he said was inaccurate, offensive, and unacceptable. Still, it's hard to watch a career go down in flames likes this.
The thing is, his remarks are on tape and can't really be taken back, not in the way you would apologize to a friend for saying something untoward. The words are out there and can be used over and over to make mischief.
He perpetuated a terrible stereotype and because he is in the news business, his listeners will tend to believe what he said. That escalates the damage.
The show's host tried to turn Sanchez away from the precipice, tried to get him to back up, but Sanchez just adjusted his aim and then drove straight for the cliff -- laughing, just before he crashed and burned. How blind and irresponsible can one man be?
I hope he recants and finds a decent job where he can do some good. I'm afraid that he will turn up on Fox News, a move that would put an exclamation point on his remarks.
So, let's wait and see what his response is before we say "Poor Rick Sanchez."
That was funny but so on point. F & F