NYT: Murdoch Fired Judith Regan Over Anti-Semitic Comments

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 01:14:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I was surprised last week to learn uber-publisher Judith Regan had been fired from Harper Collins over the O.J. book fiasco. She brought a ton of money into the company with her (in my view trashy) books. Now it makes more sense:

Rupert Murdoch personally ordered the dismissal of Judith Regan, the publisher of a widely criticized O. J. Simpson book, after he heard reports of a heated conversation Ms. Regan had with a company lawyer on Friday that included comments that were deemed anti-Semitic, according to two people familiar with the News Corporation’s account of the firing.

Mark Jackson, a lawyer with HarperCollins, a division of the News Corporation that includes Ms. Regan’s imprint, reported the alleged comments from a phone conversation with Ms. Regan....

....Mr. Murdoch... authorized [Jane Friedman, HarperCollins’s president and chief executive] to dismiss her, saying her slurs were the final straw after other recent episodes of what were deemed improper behavior, according to one of the people familiar with the News Corporation’s account.

Exactly what Regan said has not been disclosed:

Ms. Regan’s alleged comments, which came in the midst of a tense conversation in which she berated Mr. Jackson, were directed at him and Ms. Friedman, who are Jewish, as well as toward other Jews, one of the sources said.

So what's in the future for Ms. Regan?

“She’ll certainly have another life in entertainment,” said Laurence J. Kirshbaum, a literary agent and the former head of the Time Warner Book Group. “I think she will rise from these ashes and find another place.”

Maybe Mel Gibson will let her publish his book.

< Easy Christmas Shopping, Liberal Style | Are Houston Cops Over-Using Stun Guns Against Blacks? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NYT: Murdoch Fired Judith Regan Over Anti-Semitic Comments | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i'm not surprised at all (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:54:41 AM EST

given her trashy history, nothing she says or does particularly shocks me. yes, she will rise again, because she generates revenues, regardless of how tainted they may be.

that's ultimately what matters.

: The undead always rise again. (none / 0) (#12)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:33:07 PM EST

Trashy thinking (none / 0) (#2)
by koshembos on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:59:31 AM EST

It is quite disappointing to hear all those public figures spew racist remarks. You would think that by now, our society is immune to that kind of racial trash.

crap always surfaces (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:12:22 AM EST

and she will too. Read this little bit, and then note that when she was fired, her office in LA found out when the other press called asking for comment - the press release went to outside press but not to her own office....

Judith Regan fired. (none / 0) (#4)
by Skyho on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 08:22:37 AM EST

Is there a way to differentiate between anti-Semitic and anti-Semitic? I mean, was she saying things anti-Jew and/or anti-Arab?

Semitic |s??mitik| adjective
1 relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2 of or relating to the peoples who speak these languages, esp. Hebrew and Arabic.

I would like more precision on the part of the media in this regard because I don't know who to hate now, Jews or Arabs? or both, or none.

I mean, if I should call an Arab a "sandmonkey", and that is correctly reported as an anti-semitic remark, without details, why would anyone not think I was making an anti-Hebrew remark?

Personally, I feel any such remark should be labeled anti-human.

Still, what did Ms. Regan say? Did she criticize the regime currently holding sway in Israel (If so, I am so totally in her camp) or was it anti-Hebrew, in which case, while entitled to her opinion, results from expressing such an opinion may be used against her by non-Federal entities.

her rant (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 08:34:23 AM EST

was anti-Jew, and directed against a person of the Jewish faith. While your point about Arabs and Jews seems correct, the common usage of "anti-Semitic" has become one which is synonymous with anti-Jew.


Judith Regan fired. (none / 0) (#6)
by Skyho on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 09:55:47 AM EST

the common usage of "anti-Semitic" has become one which is synonymous with anti-Jew.

By whom?

If the ME attributes a different meaning to that interpreted by the US, would that, in itself, explain a few apparent discontinuities in public discourse?

Can you state, with confidence, that a Middle Easterner, upon reading the phrase "anti-Semitic", thinks anti-Jew?

I suppose I am just picking at nits. Here I am, an American whitey, who, on reading the phrase, "anti-Semitic", automatically thinks, anti-ME.

Must be just me. Oy veh.


: By whom? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:07:01 AM EST

Every MFing racist bigot in America. Which is no small number.
Even the dictionary has updated the term.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:
Anti-Semitism An`ti-Sem"i*tism, n.
Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. The word is
sometimes also applied to acts motivated by or evincing
antisemitism. -- An`ti-Sem"ite, n. -- An`ti-Sem*it"ic, a.
[Webster 1913 Suppl. +PJC]
-----------------
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
anti-semitic
adj 1: relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
[syn: racist, antiblack, anti-Semite(a)]

Thanks Skyho! (none / 0) (#8)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:17:54 AM EST

Scribe writes:

While your point about Arabs and Jews seems correct, the common usage of "anti-Semitic" has become one which is synonymous with anti-Jew.

As if we haven't seen enough coveting of things arab?

BTW the palestinians are on the brink of civil war. Nice work, folks. The last 30 years of ME negotiations relegated to the trash heap of history by Bush/Ohlmert. Really great work, Monkey Boy. Lose your map? Maybe that can be your funny-funny at the next press corps(e) dinner.

Blame the blame-worthy (none / 0) (#10)
by dab on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:49:58 AM EST

That's rich. It is Israel's fault that Hamas and Fatah are fighting each other?! I thought your comment was off-topic, but blaming the leader of the Jewish state for internal violence by others fits in well with the anti-semitism theme of this string.

I suppose Ohlmert is especially blameworthy for offering to cede most of the West Bank if the Palestinian leadership is willing to accept its right to exist and enter into negotiations? I suppose Ohlmert is responsible for a terrorist group being elected to lead the Palestinian government? For Hamas's continued refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist? For its refusal to abide by past agreements to settle differences between the parties through a negotiated, land-for-peace solution? For its continued encouragement of "martyrdom"? For the breakdown of talks between Hamas and Fatah?

The U.S., the EU, and Israel did cut off aid to the Palestinian government, but that was a natural consequence of the election of Hamas. The foreign aid at issue was given in the first instance as a "carrot" to facilitate and encourage the "peace process". The Hamas government's withdrawal of the Palestinian regime from the "peace process" disqualified the Palestininan government from receiving the incentives being paid to it for that purpose. In addition, the US, EU, etc. have an across-the-board policy of not funding terrorist regimes.

In short, if Hamas and Fatah choose to engage in a violent struggle against one another, they are responsible for their actions. The Jewish state's leader did not "make them do it."


Hijacked by Zionists (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:19:43 PM EST

but blaming the leader of the Jewish state for internal violence by others fits in well with the anti-semitism theme of this string.

Anyone critical of Israel is an anti-semite? That is a slimy Nazi technique meant to shut down debate. Why do so many wingnuts embrace fascism? Many Jews are very critical of Israel and many orthodox jews do not believe that it should exist at all as a "jewish state". Your attempt to tar all who are critical of Israel as anti-semitic is as pathetic as it is wrong.

Further proof that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt hit the nail on the head with their controversial essay 'The Israel Lobby'.


scapegoating is not debating (none / 0) (#13)
by dab on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:40:20 PM EST

I did not say criticizing Israel's policies in anti-semitism (or as others prefer "Anti-Jewish").

I said blaming the Jewish state for another people's internal conflict IS anti-semitism. Now that you mentioned nazism, scape-goating the Jews for the problems of others was a chosen technique. Why do so many far-left wingers choose to embrace anti-semitism? (I am, btw, a Democrat, but I am starting to re-think that with the embrace of the Walt and Mearsheimer Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque idea that there is a Jewish conspiracy to run the country against the interests of America by you and others on the far-left). Ahminejad (sp?) said the same thing as you at his "Holocaust conference", Jews have suppressed free speech to prevent anyone from discussing the truth - that Jews have invented the idea that six million of their brethren were murdered by the nazis.

Many Jews are critical of Israel's policies (including Orthodox Jews, although the "orthodox Jews" who attended the holocaust sham are far outside the mainstream and I would consider them to be anti-Semitic, hoping as they do for Israel to be destroyed). I have no problem with debate, especially when it is based on facts. It is blaming the Jews for the violence of Hamas instead of blaming Hamas for the violence of Hamas, that is scapegoating and wrong.


hahaha (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 01:01:28 PM EST

I did not say criticizing Israel's policies in anti-semitism (or as others prefer "Anti-Jewish").
I said blaming the Jewish state for another people's internal conflict IS anti-semitism.

There you have it. The blind man and the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.


Walt and Mearsheimer (none / 0) (#18)
by dab on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 01:39:09 PM EST

are propagandists with an agenda.

Isn't it possible
American presidents of both political parties have generally supported Israel, not because of some conspiracy that crosses religions and political barriers, but because it did NOT side with the Russians in the cold war, its citizens did not dance on 9/11 or upon hearing the news of other terrorist attacks against America, its citizens do not call for the destruction of America or burn American flags, and its leaders have generally been willing to do what America asks of it?


Arrogance (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:19:39 PM EST

Walt and Mearsheimer are propagandists with an agenda.

Quite the contrary. They point out that you and your ilk are propagandists with an agenda. Have you read the essay?

Your comments reflect their argument precisely. To assume that the state of Israel reflects the state of mind, will, or character of the Jewish people is extremely arrogant and can only be self-serving.


I have read the essay (none / 0) (#20)
by dab on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:01:24 PM EST

I have not only read it, but looked into some of its purported "sources."

Have you read any of the myriad articles and responses (from writers of many religions and political beliefs) exposing its distortions, or the writings of Dennis Ross and other eyewitnesses refuting the piece's accounts of negotiations?

I don't assume that the state of Israel reflects the "state of mind . . ." of the Jewish people because there is no one state of mind, etc. I am not the one putting forth theories of a vast conspiracy of lobbyists and politicians of one
mind that is detrimentally influencing American policy.

I still have received no answer as to why Israel's failure to support the USSR in the cold war, its cooperation with the requests of the US, not to mention its expressions of sympathy rather than joy on 9/11 are not better explanations for by-partisan American support of Israel than the purported devious conspiratorial influence of "The Lobby."

Who exactly are "me and my ilk" that you say are propagandists? Those who disagree with you? Those who think Hamas bears responsibility for the breakdown of the peace process because it has failed to engage in it or to accept the right of its neighbor to exist?


Simple (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:15:10 PM EST

Who exactly are "me and my ilk" that you say are propagandists?

Those who immediately cry anti-semitism when Israel is criticized. The effect is, whether intentional or not, to shut down any meaningful argument.

And yes Mearsheimer and Walt made errors in their essay, but so what. The essay was in no way anti-semitic and its intention was to open up a dialogue that you and your ilk seem to want to shut down.


: and also (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:36:08 PM EST

You and your ilk are those who can't help themselves from hijacking a thread to toot their horn about anti-semitism when all they mean is to defend Israel no matter how irrelevant that may be. BTW last time I checked Israel was a country, not a race or a religion.

Yes, let's do blame the blame-worthy... (none / 0) (#14)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:52:03 PM EST

...so where you state:

The U.S., the EU, and Israel did cut off aid to the Palestinian government, but that was a natural consequence of the election of Hamas.

You are admitting that because the Palestinians duly elected representatives in a DEMOCRATIC election, but failed to conform with the prejudices of the U.S., the EU, and Israel, that those countries overthrew the results of a democratically held election because they didn't like the result.

You also say:

and that had nothing to do with discrimination by the U.S., the EU, and Israel, who are proven to be so fair as to be above reproach and of such certitude that it is FINE for them to pick and choose what countries may have what leaders.

And this:

Is both a tacit admission that yes, it is Israel's fault for the warring governments undercut at every step by the Israelis, and, that you obviously don't know the crowd here at TL and should know better than to arrogate yourself to passing judgement upon those whom you do not know.

I have never seen an anti-Semitic post on this site, unless you count telling the truth about israel to be anti-Semitic, which would give the lie to any argument that you look at Israel in a fair and even-handed way.


: prejudices (none / 0) (#17)
by dab on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 01:31:21 PM EST

Who is "arrogating" him/herself to pass judgment?! Given that I have been reading this blog for more than a year, and you don't know me, who shouldn't be passing judgment on whom?!
I don't consider most posters on this blog to be anti-semitic, but when I see Israel being blamed for the rise of a terrorist regime trying to destroy it, I will respond and call a spade a spade. No one has yet explained any of the questions in my original post.
When doling out money the US, EU and Israel should not care whether they are giving it to a terrorist regime, so long as the regime was democratically elected? It is incredible to me that you think an openly-avowed terrorist regime is just another government (whose failings are no different than those of the US and EU governments), and to fail to provide it with economic aid is due to "prejudices." I suppose you consider it wrong to hold the "prejudice" against supporting terrorism?
As for the cessation of aid,
If you entered a contract to receive, e.g., a car, on condition that you make installment payments, and the seller told you it would not being delivering the car, would you continue to make payments? Hamas has declared it will not abide by peace agreements, so why should the Palestinian governments' benefactors continue to make payments for goods they are not receiving?
There is a difference between picking and choosing other countries' leaders on the one hand, and deciding whether you should give those leaders financial support, on the other.

No thread hijacking please (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:37:09 AM EST

this is about Judith Regan's firing. Fair warning.

: Apologies extended. jeralyn is right... (none / 0) (#15)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:57:48 PM EST

...that this is about Judy, Judy, Judy, who now claims she is going to sue Rupert Murdoch!
Right, sue a man with more money than god, an army of attorneys, and, apparently both the facts AND the law on his side.
Methinks someone has bitten off a bit more than they can chew.