Photo credit: Associated Press
You’d think that, in this TMZ-fueled age, movie and pop stars could do little that isn’t salaciously spread across the internet. But if the celebrity press goes overboard, the establishment press does worse: It often lets stars with dubious pasts off the hook completely.
Remember Anthony Weiner, the married Democratic congressman who sent an intimate picture of himself to young women over Twitter? The scandal vaporized his career and will no doubt land in the first paragraph of his obituary. As a long-time arts and culture writer, I’m struck by how different that was from the way another celebrity scandal was handled recently. Bill Cosby is back in the public eye. As we hit the 30th anniversary of The Cosby Show, his ’80s-era sitcom, with its groundbreaking portrayal of a comfortable black American family, Cosby made the rounds of the talk shows, from The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon to The Colbert Report. The author of a new biography, Mark Whitaker, made the rounds as well, and his book won a coveted review in the Sunday New York Times.
And yet one could scan the review, catch an interview with Cosby, even read the full 500-plus-page biography — and never hear about a slate of sexual assault allegations that have been leveled against the star. Whittaker doesn’t mention the charges. The New York Times Book Review didn’t either. TV hosts like Fallon and Colbert took a pass as well.
Here’s what you didn’t hear: In 2004, a young female friend of Cosby’s filed a police report in Pennsylvania, alleging that the star had sexually assaulted her. The police declined to file charges, citing insufficient evidence; the woman eventually went after Cosby in civil court.
Eventually three more women came forward publicly to support the first. Their stories were similar: Each said they’d found their mobility impaired after the comedian had given them pills or a drink and were subsequently assaulted. As the case neared trial, the woman’s lawyer released a witness list that included nine more “Jane Does” — women the attorney said would come forward to testify that they, too, had undergone similar behavior at the hands of Bill Cosby.
The charges were striking, given Cosby’s family-friendly material and avuncular persona. The star, through representatives, vociferously denied them. (As of publication, his publicist had not returned our request for comment.) As the civil case neared trial, with at least one supporting witness flying in to testify — the case was settled, under undisclosed terms. The other “Jane Does” have never come forward.
But until a strange turn of events this fall (more on that later) most people didn’t know about this odd turn in Cosby’s career. (Hardly anyone I’ve asked knows about it.) A few general-interest news outlets took the story on at the time of the charges: The Today Show, for example, ran a piece in 2005, with the accuser interviewed on camera; People magazine weighed in with a heavily reported story in 2006. As recently as this February, Newsweek reporter Katie Baker interviewed two of Cosby’s accusers. Otherwise, with the exception of a few pugnacious websites, the charges are hardly ever brought up. If the star himself has ever had to address them personally, I haven’t seen it. When Cosby has been the guest on TV shows, his hosts have graciously not asked the uncomfortable questions. Oprah Winfrey, the late Tim Russert, and CNN’s Don Lemon have all interviewed Cosby at length without bringing up the sexual assault charges. (Ironically, all of the appearances were to promote Cosby’s campaign for better behavior in the black community.) On the local level journalists take a pass as well: Here, for example, is a recent Arizona Republic chat with the star, helpfully promoting an appearance in a Phoenix suburb and not mentioning anything about the assault allegations.
The omissions should rankle journalistic nerve endings. The charges were made on the record; their sheer number makes them newsworthy. (People magazine said its story was based on interviews with five women.) Why has Cosby never been queried about the matter, even as he continues to present himself in media appearances as a family man pointing fingers at others in the African-American community? A few high-toned outlets did due diligence. The Wall Street Journal discussed the allegations in its review of the book. A daily review in the NYT duly cited them, as did a lengthy essay on Cosby for The New Yorker. Otherwise, it fell to online outlets to follow the story. Over the course of a recent phone interview, I asked Whitaker why he didn’t include the episode in his book.
The establishment media playing favorites? No surprise here. Just good old fashioned sacred cow-ism. A lot of that going around. Look at how Fareed Zakaria is getting a pass on the plagiarism. No wonder the only segment of society with a lower level of trust is Congress.
#1 Posted by Delver, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 09:24 AM
Asked him just yesterday.
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/11/11/bill-cosby-month-chaka-fattah-sexual-assault-allegations/
#2 Posted by Victor FIorillo, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 10:10 AM
The same can be said of Bill Clinton, who has numerous women accusing him of sexual assault, but he doesn't get asked about these allegations.
In fact, you have female reporters basically throwing their panties at Bill Clinton.
#3 Posted by David, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 10:20 AM
Actually, these tough questions have been put to Cosby over the years, most of the time by the black press. Corporate media didn't ask, I believe, because these journalists were more interested in hearing Cosby lecture and put down some black communities rather than examining the comedian's own checkered life.
#4 Posted by Tracie Powell, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 10:21 AM
It seems U.S. media focus a lot on allegations, even after those allegations are dismissed. Whether Cosby did or did not do what he is accused of is mere speculation -- the record shows that the allegations were not supported by evidence. So are you advocating the perpetuation of harmful rumors stemming from dismissed allegations? Ignoring old, unsubstantiated rumors is not unethical; trying to keep them alive for "click bait" content, however, is questionable.
#5 Posted by Bill Reader, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 11:16 AM
Credibility of facts would definitely have been helped if Cosby's illegitimate daughter??? had factual DNA proof of paternity by Cosby. IF, and that if could be a very big if, DNA evidence was not required throughout the legal proceedings, and prior to earlier support payments by Cosby, then WHY NOT? Also, why not, during the subsequent extortion charges against the woman? Of course, I haven't pursued all the facts to even know the myriad details of facts, and non facts. However, isn't the DNA evidence a pretty important fact? Wouldn't information about DNA evidence clarify accusations as more than just accusations that could only besmirch such a national icon? Really now, sex isn't love. What's immoral these days? And, who really cares today? Isn't T and A, and the availability of more T and A for the ones that really count all that really matters? Nothing else is really of any consequence, and unfortunately for the ants of the world, it would take international puniitive censorship to change the role of media today. And who wants that kind of reality? Not even ISIS, who wouldn't even have anything to fight for, if they ruled the world that they secretly watch and want too!
Here's a few lines for some comedy themes: Different strokes for different folks! Anybody can get away with anything if you have enough money! Let them have their cake and eat it too! Who's to judge? Anything goes! Morality for the millenials? Buyer beware! Snow from California? Irony of bedfellows!
#6 Posted by llisa2u2, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 12:02 PM
For the same reason journalists will not bring up names like 'Juanita Broaddrick' or any of the other women who have credibly accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.
#7 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 12:34 PM
This it very similar to my story / case against; DISCOVERY & HARPO (OPRAH'S COMPANY).
Which was IGNORED by most major media outlets and local news stations. I believe that they were ORDERED to "BURY" it by those close to the "POWERFUL" DEFENDANTS.
It's glaring OBVIOUS that the media gives certain celebrities preferential treatment when it comes to FAILING to even mention anything NEGATIVE about them or their associates.
This is extremely troubling especially to the VICTIMS of their
INSIDIOUS CRIMES who deserve to have their TRUE stories heard. And helps them get the JUSTICE they desperately seek.
There are very few remaining HONEST legitimate Journalists who are not intimidated of coming forward to protect and DEFEND FREE SPEECH without having to FEAR being BLACKLISTED by those who ABUSE their POWER.
Downright shameful and extremely UNFAIR!
#8 Posted by Susan Kasi, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 12:31 PM
I did not learn about these allegations until I publisged a review of cosby's most recent biography: http://aalbc.it/thecos
#9 Posted by Troy Johnson, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 01:17 PM
http://aalbc.com/tc/index.php/topic/2856-evidence-facebooks-revenue-is-based-on-fake-likes/
#10 Posted by Troy Johnson, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 02:21 PM
This is serious matter and I don't want to compare apples and oranges. But business reporting is widely PR driven as well, especially about big corporations, CEOs, directors and other key opinion makers in their orbit. I'm reminded of this yet again today with Warren Buffett's acquisition of Duracell from Procter & Gamble, in a deal on which Berkshire Hathaway will pay little or taxes. My beef isn't so much with the loopholes--if they exist, businesses will use them. But playing field isn't level when it comes to guys like Buffet and it's not just because and hangs out with politicos. These skids are greased in part by the fact that he's been a media darling for decades, friends with numerous journalists, including one at Fortune, who has all but written his memoirs. Oracle of Omaha is hardly one one--but kid glove treatment he's received is at least in part responsible for why business press are increasingly viewed as a joke by many in the marketplace.
#11 Posted by Blue Heron, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 04:34 PM
I feel compelled to amend my earlier comment because I have since re-read this post by Bill Wyman and he raises several very important points about coverage for a bunch of entertainment industry people, which do not apply to Buffett. The bigger questions are how much about the privates lives of public figures, a.k.a. folks who court publicity as part of their need to making a living, is fair game for reporters to ask/write about? If they are found to say or do things that are odds with opinions they have shared in public, does that give reporter's additional license to go fishing further? And should such investigation for a biography book by a journalist cover more territory, even more thoroughly than if he/she were writing a story? It seems to me the answer to all three is yes and part of the conundrum here is that U.S. media have no consistent track record in recent decades, not just in how we report on entertainers/athletes/celebrities but politicians, government officials, business people and others who attract broad attention to themselves. Some of these folks get much more scrutiny than others, but most get little or none in any consistent fashion--and many of those who fall in latter category, for a host of equally uncomfortable but different reasons, are somehow deemed to be "sacred cows," like Cosby. Variations of this have probably been true since the beginning of time. But the media's vexing lack of consistency/integrity here hurts all involved?
#12 Posted by Blue Heron, CJR on Fri 14 Nov 2014 at 06:21 AM