PressEthic

I should probably start this blog by pointing out some of the many differences between Mel Gibson (or as Borat calls him: "fearless anti-Jew warrior Melvin Gibson) and Michael Richards (of "Seinfeld" Kramer fame). First of all, Gibson is a major movie actor and director, whose movies routinely exceed box office expectations. Richards has never been a leading actor in a movie, and since "Seinfeld," has faded into obscurity. Further, Gibson is richer and much more powerful that Richards.

Now that we've taken care of that, take a look at this disturbing video, which captures Richards going into a racially insulting rant on a comedy club stage (Warning: This video includes some profane and racially charged language). If you don't want to look at the video, the link sends you to a brief description of what happened.

What is the responsibility of the press in this situation? Neither the celebrity nor the location is extremely high-profile. But the profanity and disturbing nature of the tirade certainly make it newsworthy. Nonetheless, the media coverage of this event really pales in comparison to the disturbing Mel Gibson episode. Check out, for instance, this New York Times piece about Richard's apology on "The Late Show with David Letterman," which really lets Richards off the hook. Here's a small sample:

“You know,” Mr. Richards said at one point, seeming to address Mr. Letterman directly, “I’m a performer. I push the envelope. I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage. I do a lot of free-association” — he slurred the word a bit — “and spontaneous. I go into character.”

That fairly simple point seemed, in the delivery, important. In the Laugh Factory clip, which was cut, framed and semiliterately subtitled by AOL’s entertainment site, TMZ.com, Mr. Richards begins by saying, “Shut up! Fifty years ago ...” and then the material becomes unpublishable. But viewed with the possibility in mind that he’s creating characters, it’s easy to see a trace of parody in the way he hams up his racist word, shaking his fist like the leader of a lynch mob.

A second later, when he retreats into another voice, one of hushed horror — “Ooh, Ooh” — it certainly seems as though the hang-’em-high character has been at least partly that, a character.

Maybe the writer is correct in this assessment, but Richards never said such a thing. So, should the media be held accountable for the differences in coverage between Richards and Gibson, or should the mere differences of these two men be enough to explain the disparities? I should make it clear that I am not attempting to defend Gibson by any means. My point has to do with fairness in media coverage of two similarly offensive and racially charged events.

Certainly, Gibson was not invited to appear on the David Letterman "Late Show" just days after his racially insensitive comments. If you want to see one of the most uncomfortable moments in television history, check out Richard's apology on Letterman's show.

Further, there doesn't seem to be any resentment toward David Letterman or the "Late Show" for allowing Richards on just days after his disturbing rant. Fox was deservedly lambasted for planning to air an interview with O.J. Simpson, who clearly wanted to promote his book, in which he describes how he would have murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. Richards appears on the Letterman show the night that Jerry Seinfeld is on and just days before the new "Seinfeld" DVD is to come out. So, is Letterman and the "Late Show" guilty of a similar indiscretion here, even if you clearly can't equate murder with highly offensive language?