Why are Michael Richards comments taken so much more lightly than Mel Gibson's?

Question

I am asking why people think the reaction to Michael Richard's tirade is so much more mild than it was for Mel Gibson. Especially when Gibson was Drunk and Richards was not. This is not an avenue for racist bashing, just want to hear your thoughts on this from a sociological and intellectual standpoint.

The question was asked so I will answer it. The comment about Richards being a cracker didnt come until well after his tirade, and it wasn't by the hecklers it was by an upset audience member. Clearly I am not the one that didnt watch the video. Most people no matter what their opinion is have managed to remain intelligent and thoughtful; however it seems ignorance rears its head everywhere. So please leave the thinking to the smart people ;)

Answer 1

True; a formal apology to those he offended was demanded from Gibson (which was granted). Gibson even went to events honoring Jews. The media pushed for details from the police and even made a TV episode based on the incident. You expect to see the same regret and apology from Michael Richards to the black community he offended--DREAM ON!

If the roles were reversed and Richards was in the audience and told a comedian he wasn't funny, is it OK for that comedian to get angry and call Richards a "kike" over and over and over again? Would there even be a DEBATE like there is now on how racist and wrong that would be? It seems as though some racial incidents will be portrayed the spin doctors as "whining" over nothing and "political correctness", while others are a crime to humanity!

Answer 2

I don't agree - I think that Mel had much more sympathy (and shouldn't have) than Richards (who also shouldn't have)

For me?...The N word was not the worst of it - the pitchfork and hanging from trees comment was...horrific. I'm sure there were people sitting with white hoods over their heads that gasped at that. Come on now...give me a break.

Besides, I sure thought he was a big ugly racist yesterday...but today it's coming out that it's all a big Lampoon. That he and the two guys that heckled him, the club, Seinfeld, Letterman...and the tv judge they are going in front of now...are allllll in on it. It's a Lampoon Andy Kaufmann style...(which IS the kind of comedy Michael Richards comedy roots are from & he was close friends with Andy Kaufmann)

Don't know what to think now. Those were racist remarks...clearly. If this is all some elaborate lampoon on the American public?...not funny either.

Answer 3

Obviously the reason Mel Gibson got more of media bashing is because he is Mel Gibson. Second Mel spoke about Jewish people which the American Media its mostly ran by Jews. What Michael Richards said is without doubt worse then what Mel Gibson said but they were both disgusting things to say. With Mel i accept his apology but with Michael Richards at the moment i cant. What he said was so vicious i cant believe anyone this day and age would say this. For your information ****** doesnt mean "ignorant person" like someone said , it means "Black Slave" to call someone a ****** is to call that person a Black Slave which is what Black people in America were racially called for along time. It does bring alot of pain to Black people all around the world. from Brasil to the Caribbean to America and Africa slavery is still something that affects people emotionally. Imagine what happened to the Jewish people but four times worse. Thats why Jewish and Black People still feel alot of pain when you talk about the past because they have both been through more pain then anyother race of people combined. So instead of defending Michael Richards understand what he said was Racist. This coming from a Afro-Caribbean Australian who has family who is Jewish. So i understand both pains.

Answer 4

I've been asking myself the same question. I checked if it had been asked before I posted a question, and came upon yours. I believe I know the answer, but I'm not sure the all-American audience on here would want to hear it. Jews have power in the USA, blacks do not. Plain and simple.

In my opinion, the worst of what he said wasn't the "N" word - it was the rest of it.

I don't care if he was taunted by hecklers - the man is supposed to be a professional and better skilled at his job than that.

Racism exists on both sides of the fence - but two wrongs do NOT make a right and even more so when you are in the public eye - for that sets an example.

And yes, I do speak publicly quite often, for up three hours at a time. I have also made television and other media appearances over the years, so I know about audiences.

Yes, Cookie, he IS the bad guy - for he is in the public eye and therefore has a responsibility. He is also old enough to know the history of his own country and know well enough that while the audience members were not behaving appropriately, white Americans have no-one to blame but themselves for the state of affairs they find in their country!

Answer 5

Michael Richards made his comments in a comedy act whereas Mel Gibson was addressing a police officer. Richards possibly intended his tirade on some level to be comical. Perhaps both men lost their tempers, but Michael Richards surely had some intention of entertaining his audience while attacking two hecklers (even if his judgement strayed to a place that left people hurt). Mel Gibson completely detached, as another answer says, from any semblance of normal good conduct and was making a deliberately racist attack on the Jews.

Answer 6

I think this event is still to recent to compare the fall out of the two.

Still if it does end up that "Kramer" gets less of a backlash it's more a function of who stands to lose more. Mel is a far more prestigious actor with a reputation for high morality and the ultimate evil of being a Christian, so the media views any sensationalism from him to be more news worthy than Richards.

The only other possible reason that I can see is people view anti-semintism in a worse light than being "ant-black." I personally don't think this argument holds anything because society today is on a perpetual witch-hunt for anything hinting at racism.

Answer 7

I do not know what you are talking, about I have seen more of what Michael Richards said then what Mel Gibson siad.
The reason that the Mel Gibson story did get so much coverage is because most of mainstream hollywood is Jewish and they have been looking for an excuse to get Gibson for years.

Answer 8

Because Richards is really only known for one thing, and that is Seinfeld. Though it was a popular show, Gibson is FAR more famous. Ever since Seinfeld ended, Richards dissapeared. It doesn't really matter what he says. He's washed up, he was over before he said those things. Gibson was still big when he did what he did, and it was especially strang in light of the Passion. I think both men are in for a lot of sitting on their wealth and not much further work!

Answer 9

I think the media is trying to downplay this incident since it involved racist comments towards African Americans. Anti-semetic comments seem to get more play in the media and are thought of as more heinous. It hits closer to home and Whites are more embarrassed when their counter-parts spew that racist venom in public. It's one thing to say those things at home, and at parties but when someone says it in public they want it go away as soon as possible and want to distance themselves from it. I think in order for this incident to stay in the forefront and be addressed, Blacks will have to keep it fresh and see what gets done about it. It could also be that Mel Gibson's PR people told him what he needed to do to make it right and he took action immediately. Michael Richards probably doesn't have PR people since he's a has-been.

Answer 10

Is it really being taken more lightly. Give it a minute. Oh, by the way, Mel Gibson was making a movie about Jesus' life and death...small detail but probably the major reason why this Gibson's comment would be taken more seriously. Plus, the Jews were involved feeling like they were blamed for the death of Jesus by Gibson in his portrayal. Maybe its about time every didn't get all wound up about this, yeah he was out of line--of course--but sooner or later racial slurs like "******" will have to be silenced for all races including the ones that use it like on themselves like a term of endearment. Otherwise, lighten up! I'm a little over black comedians making fun of whites (that's so easy), and enjoy those who can turn the table in smart, savvy way without crossing the line. Anyway, to answer your question frankly people care more about K Fed than Kramer(few people know him by his real name.