Althouse: "By pulling Cosby’s already completed and widely consumed work, TV Land kicked off an effort to scour Cosby from pop-culture history..."

November 20, 2014

"By pulling Cosby’s already completed and widely consumed work, TV Land kicked off an effort to scour Cosby from pop-culture history..."

"... as though, with every re-air, the public would be reminded it had been duped, and was once again guilty of putting too much trust in an individual now thought undeserving of it. It’s the closest thing to retroactively reprobating Cosby, reminiscent of the NCAA vacating Joe Paterno’s wins and Penn State removing his statue after the coach was deemed culpable of covering up Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse of young boys."

Writes WaPo's Soraya Nadia McDonald at "Cleansing popular culture of all things Cosby."

Interesting application of the word "guilty."

ADDED: "So Netflix, don't air that Cosby post-Thanksgiving special, even though you have already paid for and shot it; NBC, cancel that Cosby sitcom. And if that doesn’t happen, then shame on anyone who watches them."

37 comments:

gerry said...: "...once again guilty..."

Hmmm. Did Jerry Mathers ever do anything heinous?; 11/20/14, 7:47 AM
Danno said...: I am not here to defend Mr. Cosby, but why is this all coming out now? It looks like the most recent rape allegation is about 10 years old, way past the statute of limitations for criminal or civil case filing. I saw something written by Ta-Nehisi Coates last night that was about Bill Cosby and quite readable since it wasn't about reparations!; 11/20/14, 7:51 AM
RecChief said...: has Cosby been convicted of anything or just vague accusations? I confess I haven't been following the story. If he hasn't been charged or convicted...; 11/20/14, 8:00 AM
Tank said...: This is Cosby's opportunity. They're on TV accusing him of rape. That is libel per se (at least here in NJ). So, file your defamation suit and bankrupt your accusers.

If you dare.; 11/20/14, 8:06 AM
hombre said...: Trial by media exploiting black male stereotype.

He may have done all this, but I wonder if any of these other allegations surfaced prior to the pleadings in the civil suit and the interviews with the plaintiff's lawyer and why there were no follow up civil suits.; 11/20/14, 8:13 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Presumably TV networks will do the same with anything related to Pres Clinton.; 11/20/14, 8:13 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Show us on Lisa Bonet where Bill Cosby touched you.; 11/20/14, 8:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: I am not here to defend Mr. Cosby, but why is this all coming out now?

Because it's the latest shout, to talk about it. The grist mill will grind on Cosby for another week or so, and then move on.; 11/20/14, 8:28 AM
doofus said...: I presume, then, that the same standard is going to apply to Roman Polanski, who, you know, was actually convicted in a court of law of raping and sodomizing a 14-year old girl. What's that? (Listens) crickets.

Not to defend the Coz, but there seems to be an awful lot of selective outrage here. How about those gay producers in Hollywood who have been accused of grooming and then sleeping with underage teens boys? Are we going to treat them the same way? We have about the same level of evidence here: multiple accusations from different accusers.

I am just really leery of reacting to people when the prosecution is done in the papers.; 11/20/14, 8:30 AM
Brando said...: I'm a strong believer in loving the art even if you don't love the man. Most great work is produced by flawed or even evil people.

Though if the networks here are shutting things down out of fear of a ratings hit then that's their business decision. But I'm not about to stop enjoying Fat Albert and Jello Pudding over this.; 11/20/14, 8:32 AM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: For crying out loud, it was the 60s and 70s, people were doing all kinds of drugs and having sex everywhere. I know if you lived it, you don't remember it, but I do have enough vague recollections.; 11/20/14, 8:33 AM
Scott M said...: Echoing Rec Chief...isn't this all still just alleged?; 11/20/14, 8:35 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: How on earth will they fit President William J. Clinton down the memory hole? I mean, don't tell me there's some kind of bias in the media/Left reaction to allegations of sexual assualt and rape--that would be pretty difficult to swallow.; 11/20/14, 8:40 AM
Shanna said...: This is Cosby's opportunity. They're on TV accusing him of rape. That is libel per se (at least here in NJ). So, file your defamation suit and bankrupt your accusers.

If you dare.

And:

it was the 60s and 70s, people were doing all kinds of drugs and having sex everywhere.

I think these two comments belonged together because I suspect if we knew What Really Happened, it would not be flattering to Cosby. It might not be rape, but then again it might be, but it seems like it will involve a lot of drunken/drugged sex. And a lot of these people will have been younger or vulnerable. And none of this will show Bill Cosby in a good light.

Since the statute of limitations is over for basically everything and Cosby is an old man, it is probably better for him to just let it all blow over.; 11/20/14, 8:43 AM
Freder Frederson said...: They're on TV accusing him of rape. That is libel per se (at least here in NJ). So, file your defamation suit and bankrupt your accusers.

Not if the accusations are true, it isn't.; 11/20/14, 8:49 AM
tola'at sfarim said...: crosby is to clinton as gruber is to romney.......; 11/20/14, 8:55 AM
Tank said...: @Freder

Exactly.; 11/20/14, 8:59 AM
Saint Croix said...: I suspect that it's quite common for unknown people to make allegations against celebrities. And the media ignores it, unless there is some sort of official recognition. A prosecution, an arrest, a civil suit. Otherwise it would be "Obama raped me" 24/7 in the media.

At first I found this article quite weird. Kurtz is talking about liberal hostility to Bill Cosby.

At first I didn't understand the article. None of these women are motivated by politics. That's absurd. So why is Kurtz putting these allegations into political context?

He's a media writer. He writes about media. And he's telling us why the media has decided that it's okay to destroy Bill Cosby. And by "destroy Bill Cosby," I mean broadcast unproven allegations as if they are facts. The media ignores this stuff all the time, but in this case they've decided not to.; 11/20/14, 9:00 AM
carrie said...: When are they going to pull Letterman off the air. In my opinion, his affairs with interns are just about as bad as what Cosby is accused of doing and Letterman has admitted it--drugs vs using your position of authority to force/coerce women-- both bad and abusive.; 11/20/14, 9:05 AM
techsan said...: And Lena Dunham's material will be scoured when?; 11/20/14, 9:20 AM
Saint Croix said...: Consider NPR asking Bill Clinton about Juanita Broaddrick. They don't do that. Political junkies (especially Republicans who hate Clinton) know about Broaddrick, but the vast majority of Americans have not heard her claims.

That's intentional. People in the media decide that these allegations have not been proven, so we're not going to treat them as if they are factual.

Feminism throws Broaddrick under the bus, for the same reason they threw Paula Jones under the bus. They don't care about individual women. They care about their ideology.

You can say that all these allegations should be aired in public. And that's fine. But our feminist overlords need to be fair about this. They need to air rape accusations against liberals like Bill Clinton.

Being even-handed in your treatment--do unto others as you would have them do unto you--would keep our feminist overlords from becoming monsters in their allegations. When it's your guy that's the rapist, your President, your son, your brother, your man that you care about, all of a sudden your ideology is out the window and now it's "wait a second, these allegations are unproven."; 11/20/14, 9:21 AM
virgil xenophon said...: carrie and those who spotlight the rapist Clinton make good points. And Howard Kurtz (and Limbaugh) are not wrong. Cosby--especially his TV series--is hated by a huge number of blacks (the street-thug element and black nationalist/separatists "intellectuals" like Coates) for "acting white" and thus giving the lie to the validity of their inner-city lifestyles--indeed to the essence of their very existence..

And I wonder if TV Land considered the fact that by pulling Cosbys TV series they will be depriving all the other actors on the show of residuals and thus subjecting them to financial loss as if in collective punishment..; 11/20/14, 9:27 AM
virgil xenophon said...: PS: I also very much like Shanna's gloss on this subject--probably as accurate as anything could be at this late stage..; 11/20/14, 9:30 AM
Saint Croix said...: I might be wrong about how many people have heard about Broaddrick. Interesting story here. That's a Howard Kurtz story too.

NBC ran the allegation but (Kurtz is implying) they timed the release of the story to avoid influencing the impeachment proceedings.

Had NBC aired the interview during the Senate impeachment trial and the furor over Monica S. Lewinsky, it might have had a significant impact on the political climate. Whether the story has any lasting significance now, outside the context of any legal or impeachment proceeding, is unclear. NBC executives say the Myers report needed further checking and corroboration before it could be broadcast.

NBC did the interview on January 20. To put this in the impeachment timeline, Clinton has been impeached by the House (December 19). The Senate has not voted yet.

NBC decides to sit on the interview until after the impeachment proceedings.

Kurtz reports "a month of heated internal debate" at NBC. I'll bet!

February 12, Clinton is acquitted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

A week after the Senate acquits Clinton, The Washington Post runs this story.

A week after that, NBC finally runs the interview.

So they didn't kill the story to protect Bill Clinton from a (false? true?) rape accusation. They just timed it so he wouldn't lose his job.; 11/20/14, 10:17 AM
Gahrie said...: I must have missed it..when was Cosby's trial held?; 11/20/14, 10:24 AM
Birkel said...: I am old enough to remember the "Lion of the Senate". Teddy Kennedy actually killed a woman in a drunk driving accident. Remember how every news station treated him after that?

And that other Kennedy... You got me. I could've meant either Bobby or Jack... Well those two Cameloted as many of the D.C. women as they could.; 11/20/14, 10:28 AM
Dan in Philly said...: I get that networks are shy about bad publicity, and Cosby isn't going to jail, but they must be pretty convinced if they're all dropping him now.
I remember a church I worked at once who insisted their staff behave in ways above reproach. Wouldn't even allow a male pastor counsel a woman. Even if nothing happened, the appearance of the possibility was what they wanted to avoid. Sounds like Cosby lead a life which opened himself up to this kind of accusation, even if he did nothing illegial.
Is my statement above too much like blaming the victim? Maybe so.; 11/20/14, 10:42 AM
Bryan C said...: I suspect Cosby was involved in lots of consensual drunk and drugged-up sex with other drunk and drugged-up people. Some of whom, at some later point, decided that they regretted doing it. But, apparently, they didn't regret it soon enough or deeply enough to file charges while there was any chance of actually proving anything.; 11/20/14, 11:21 AM
Carter Wood said...: How to handle I Spy? Pull half the episodes?; 11/20/14, 11:24 AM
Drago said...: Birkel: "And that other Kennedy... You got me. I could've meant either Bobby or Jack... Well those two Cameloted as many of the D.C. women as they could."

As has been stated before, I'm so old I remember when the Kennedy's killed their women 1 at a time!; 11/20/14, 12:04 PM
bbkingfish said...: That's capitalism, baby. Hero today, bum tomorrow. The advertisers decide when you're through.; 11/20/14, 12:13 PM
Brando said...: It's one thing for advertisers to say that someone is toxic, and networks to react to that by pulling shows that won't make them money--they're just reacting to the market. But there's something creepy with the idea of erasing someone from pop culture, as if he never existed and never exerted any influence on the culture. Even if it were proven that he did awful things--you can't take away their art and its impact on culture.; 11/20/14, 1:56 PM
bgates said...: the public would be reminded it had been duped, and was once again guilty of putting too much trust in an individual now thought undeserving of it

Thank goodness that doesn't happen any more.; 11/20/14, 2:33 PM
Danno said...: Birkel said...
I am old enough to remember the "Lion of the Senate". Teddy Kennedy actually killed a woman in a drunk driving accident.

As James Taranto says, "Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment."; 11/20/14, 4:56 PM
tim maguire said...: I can't say that I don't care about the personal behaviour of my artists or that I would never protest the artist by boycotting the art, but I can't say right now what act would cause me to boycott.

I can say that I feel no desire to boycott the Coz. I feel sadness that this may be the closing scene of a genius career, but I won't avoid seeing or listening to Cosby comedy that I like.

Could I really be expected to hear the Noah story without wondering, "how long can you tread water?"; 11/20/14, 6:36 PM
chickelit said...: Even if it were proven that he did awful things--you can't take away their art and its impact on culture.

They can try.

But Hanna Rosin? Has she been a positive influence on humanity? Didn't she predict "The End Of Men"? May her cultural myopia be as shortsighted as Francis Fukuyama's sense of history was. She's just a huckster selling the next book or syndicated piece.; 11/20/14, 8:20 PM
ken in tx said...: To me, it is like those old Soviet encyclopedias that air brushed out certain people from group photos of the polit bureau, in each new edition.; 11/20/14, 10:07 PM