Anne Applebaum: Telling the Whole Truth Now Would Be Too Confusing
Anne Applebaum has become the Big Media equivalent of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men,” sending me an e-mail whose message is fairly summarized as: My readers can’t handle the truth!
Here is her e-mail:
Many thanks. Okay, you win:
– I used the word “trial” in the layman’s sense – trial meaning a judicial investigation, court proceedings etc – and see no need to correct, as it would confuse the matter further.
– I have re-read the blog and I do not find a sentence where I state that Polanski is not a Polish citizen.
(Though – for the record – I am not sure that he is a Polish citizen, despite “multiple sources” saying so. He is certainly Polish of course, but I don’t know if he holds a Polish passport: At the time he left the country, most people had to give up their passports. Following your query I asked my husband the foreign minister and he said that he does not know whether Polanski has a Polish passport either.)
– the victim called her mother to ask for permission to have her picture taken before getting into the jacuzzi, during a photo session with Roman Polanski. Amounts to the same thing, I’m afraid. What apalled me about that story was the mother’s reaction, which should have been “I am coming to get you right now.” There is more than one adult who bears responsibility here, which is part of what makes the story so far from straightforward. Though I don’t particularly want to start shouting about it after thirty years, I’m sure the mother felt bad enough.
– Yes, there is “evidence” that Polanski did not know the girls age – or that he was told but did not believe it: He has told people since that, anyway. Pictures of her from the time show a girl who could be anywhere from 12-25. “There is evidence” is a broad expression and I see no need to correct that either, as again it would simply be confusing. The Washington Post blog is not really suited to constant updates, for better or for worse.In any case, none of these particular issues has much to do with my main point, which were that this was a confusing story and that it’s very peculiar that the Swiss suddenly decided to arrest him now. I do not condone his original action in any way, and didn’t write that I did, either: However, I dislike the reduction of complicated stories to simple facts. And please don’t write back that “he drugged and raped a child” because that is not an accurate description of what happened.
As for the “Big Media” and its lies and distortions: You are welcome to include me in your condemnation of the MSM, though do note that at least three other Washington Post columnists have written columns or blogs agreeing with you, not me. This morning’s paper includes an editorial which also agrees with you, not me. So at least we are not monolithic.
best,
AA
I have bolded the parts I found most amusing, namely Applebaum’s repeated contention that giving her readers the most accurate set of facts “would simply be confusing” — yet, she claims, she dislikes “the reduction of complicated stories to simple facts.”
Allow me to dismantle her feeble arguments one by one:
I used the word “trial” in the layman’s sense – trial meaning a judicial investigation, court proceedings etc – and see no need to correct, as it would confuse the matter further.
Applebaum here concedes that she was inaccurate to claim Polanski had a “trial,” but claims the full truth would be too confusing. She essentially implies that I am being overly technical. Not at all. Here is what she originally wrote:
There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial . . .
This passage implies that there may be some doubt about Polanski’s guilt. If there is evidence of judicial misconduct during a “trial” — coupled with evidence that the defendant may not be guilty — then the defendant’s guilt is questionable. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Polanski pled guilty, and testified under oath that he knew the girl was 13.
I certainly can understand why Applebaum would want to withhold these facts from her readers. Telling readers these facts might muddle Applebaum’s message that Polanski is a poor put-upon old man who survived the Holocaust and may well be innocent. But it wouldn’t be confusing to tell readers the truth. It would merely detract from Applebaum’s ridiculous position.
Let me skip ahead briefly to Applebaum’s related contention that it would be too confusing to tell readers that Polanski swore under oath that he knew the victim was 13:
Yes, there is “evidence” that Polanski did not know the girls age – or that he was told but did not believe it: He has told people since that, anyway. Pictures of her from the time show a girl who could be anywhere from 12-25. “There is evidence” is a broad expression and I see no need to correct that either, as again it would simply be confusing. The Washington Post blog is not really suited to constant updates, for better or for worse.
A blog that is “is not really suited to constant updates” for full accuracy is a blog that should not exist. Recall what Applebaum originally wrote:
There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.
It is simply beyond me how someone can be in the business of journalism and feel that they have discharged their duty to their readers with that sentence — and feel it is too “confusing” to tell readers that Polanski admitted under oath that he knew her real age:
MR. GUNSON: On March 10, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?
(Pause in the proceedings while a discussion off the record ensued at the counsel table between the defendant and his counsel.)
THE DEFENDANT [Polanski]: She was 13.
MR. GUNSON: Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?
(Pause in the proceedings while a discussion off the record ensued at the counsel table between the defendant and his counsel.)
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
I have encountered one other journalist who employed the argument that the full truth would confuse his readers. That was Chuck Philips, who wrote a front-page story touting a murder defendant’s alibi — but deliberately omitted the facts that the defendant had contradicted his alibi in taped statements to police, and had lied to Philips about other aspects of the case. When I asked Philips about that, he told me these details were omitted because they “muddied up” the story and would take too much space to explain. As with Applebaum, Philips’s attitude was: my readers can’t handle the truth. It’s too confusing.
Philips had a slipshod respect for the facts, and was fired from the L.A. Times for spectacularly botching a story. Take note, Ms. Applebaum.
I have re-read the blog and I do not find a sentence where I state that Polanski is not a Polish citizen.
(Though – for the record – I am not sure that he is a Polish citizen, despite “multiple sources” saying so. He is certainly Polish of course, but I don’t know if he holds a Polish passport: At the time he left the country, most people had to give up their passports. Following your query I asked my husband the foreign minister and he said that he does not know whether Polanski has a Polish passport either.)
Applebaum got me there — she didn’t make that statement on her blog. Instead, as I reported here, she made it to a colleague who repeated it in an online chat at the Washington Post:
I have disclosed that [the marriage] before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine.
Evidently, when she said “Polanski is not a Polish citizen” she meant “despite multiple press reports that say Polanski is a Polish citizen, I am not sure that he is a Polish citizen. My lack of certainty, coupled with my lack of respect for accuracy, allows me to confidently assert with certainty that he is not.”
Whatever.
the victim called her mother to ask for permission to have her picture taken before getting into the jacuzzi, during a photo session with Roman Polanski. Amounts to the same thing, I’m afraid. What apalled me about that story was the mother’s reaction, which should have been “I am coming to get you right now.” There is more than one adult who bears responsibility here, which is part of what makes the story so far from straightforward. Though I don’t particularly want to start shouting about it after thirty years, I’m sure the mother felt bad enough.
No, Ms. Applebaum, the victim did not testify that she called her mother to ask for permission to have her picture taken before getting into the jacuzzi. Nor did she testify that she “ask[ed] permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi,” as you originally claimed. In her testimony, the subject of permission does not come up at all. As I have previously reported, the full testimony on this subject is as follows:
Q. What happened out there after he indicated he wished to take pictures of you in the jacuzzi?
A. We went inside and called my mother.
Q. When you say “we called,” did you call or did Mr. Polanski call?
A. He told me to and I talked and then he talked and then I talked again.
Q. What did you tell your mother?
A. She goes, “Are you all right?
I went, “Uh-huh.”
And she says, “Do you want me to come pick you up?”
And I went, “No.”
And he said that we’d be home kind of late because it had already gotten dark out.
Q. When you said “he said,” did he tell you or did you hear him tell your mother on the phone?
A. He told my mother.
Q, Did he tell your mother any other things?
A. Not that I was listening to.
Q. After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?
A. We went out and I got in the jacuzzi.
As I said before, there is nothing in there about asking the victim’s mom for permission to have pictures taken in the jacuzzi. Applebaum made that part up. Now I have told her about it, and in true arrogant Big Media style, she is sticking to her guns, and damn the facts.
Why she finds it so important to try to lay blame on the mother, anyway, I don’t know. Polanski is the one who provided champagne to a 13-year-old. Polanski is the one who provided part of a Quaalude to a 13-year-old. Polanski is the one who licked the vagina of a 13-year-old, and had vaginal and anal sex with a 13-year-old. Maybe mom was wrong to leave her child alone with this cretin, especially given his reputation. So flipping what?
Sorry if I have “confused” readers here too much by providing facts rather than falsehoods, or incomplete and misleading statements. But, you know, I dislike the reduction of simple facts to falsehoods.
Anne Applebaum thinks you can’t handle the truth. I wonder if her editor agrees. His name is Fred Hiatt and he can reached at hiattf@washpost.com.
I wonder how AA will spin the loss of Polanski’s alibi?
Polanski’s grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that “I lied” in the movie about advising the judge, and that “it never happened,” which could undermine the director’s case for dismissal.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:28 amThen praytell what did happen, Anne. Because what you don’t want to be written is, quite simply, exactly what fucking happened.
Anne and the MSM think that you are all so fucking stupid that you could not possibly comprehend the actual facts, so you should just rely on their biased and dishonest misinterpretation. You are quickly passing the rest of your crooked dishonest brethren as a living breathing example of how screwed up the MSM is.
JD (b537f4) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:28 amI don’t know why Anne Applebaum is doubling down on her misstatements. She is laughably wrong in just about every detail.
And with the Internet more or less a permanent medium, she will never lose the loss of face over this incredibly stupid posture on Polanski’s drugging and rape of a 13-year-old girl.
steve miller (c56ca1) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:31 amI would like to see the IRS conduct a net worth audit of Ms. Applebaum and her husband. Coupled with a Justice Department investigation of all money transfers from Polanski; and all received by Sirkoski and Applebaum.
nk (df76d4) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:31 amWhat part is not true? The drugging? Or the raping?
I mean, I’m not nuanced like Anne Applebaum is. What, are Quaaludes just aspirin?
steve miller (c56ca1) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:34 amYes, there is “evidence” that Polanski did not know the girls age – or that he was told but did not believe it: He has told people since that, anyway. Pictures of her from the time show a girl who could be anywhere from 12-25. “There is evidence” is a broad expression and I see no need to correct that either, as again it would simply be confusing
This is why the MSM is so despised. This is called lying by omission. The standard for journalism now is “there is evidence” — which here seems to consist mainly in the perp’s after the fact denials.
An honest journalist would at least note that the “evidence” is contradicted by other evidence — such as his sworn statement to the contrary over 30 years ago. No mention at all is made of that — only the flimsy evidence that supports one’s thesis is cited. Contrary evidence can simply be ignored as “confusing.”
I am waiting for the day that WAPO fails.
Bored Lawyer (44ef84) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:37 amshe’s just sort of hopeless. She tried to help the child raper guy and she failed failed failed and remarkably gracelessly.
She needs to go away cause she’s making Kathleen Parker look like the smart one over there.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:37 amIs it possible that Anne Applebaum herself is, like the “layman” she imagines, sort of dim about the difference between a plea and a trial?
That would be consistent with the general degree of legal illiteracy I see in the media.
Ken (c97a0c) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:38 amThe only thing I find confusing is Ms. Applebaum’s decision to continue this discussion with you. She should have quit digging long ago and acknowledged her mistakes. Instead, she has gotten defensive and made her situation worse.
Bru (86684e) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:38 amHow would you describe what happened, Anne?
JD (b537f4) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:40 amThis is what I wrote Mr. Hiatt:
Mr. Hiatt,
Is it now journalistic policy of the Post to make up facts to fit your reporter’s version of a story? Didn’t your paper have to return a Pulitzer Prize for doing such things? I would think you should take Ms. Applebaum in hand and go over the documents line by line with her story, CORRECT IT, and PUBLISH THE CORRECTIONS!
Also, at this point, a full disclosure of Ms. Applebaum’s connections to Roman Polanski, financial, political, and through her husband should be significant part of the Post’s correction of its reporting. Anything less makes you the true descendant of the Nixon Whitehouse.
Dan Mehlhorn
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:42 amDubuque, IA
Instead, she has gotten defensive and made her situation worse.
Comment by Bru — 10/1/2009 @ 7:38 am
I, for one, would not do that unless somebody was paying me to.
nk (df76d4) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:42 amHow would you describe what happened, Anne?
Roman was tired of his lady, they’d been together too long. Like a worn-out recording, of a favorite song I think. So while she lay there sleeping, he read the paper in bed. And in the personals column, there was this letter he read.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:43 amhappyfeet,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/1/2009 @ 7:54 amNow you’ve done it. That song is going to stay in my head the rest of the day!
That’s some righteous pwnage, Patterico. It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to avoid the truth.
Insomniac (da1404) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:02 amApplebaum seems to think she is paid to write her thoughts and musings on her blog as if truth or clarity are not important.
“Come, read what comes off the top of my head. Facts are complicated so you won’t have to think much when you read me.”
Does she put journalist in the box for occupation? Are other journalists happy with that?
Maybe she thinks she is another Dan Brown that can mix facts and fiction and people will swallow it all. I think she has qualified to for the description of a hack.
Johnny (eb120d) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:13 amAll professional newspapers have a code of ethics, or they use the one that can be found on the Web site of the Society of Professional Journalists.
In it, all journalists, including unbelievably ignorant columnists, must correct ALL FACTUAL ERRORS, whether it further “confuses” readers or not — which is a ridiculous claim.
This is not the first time, nor the last, that The Washington Post has eroded the ethical boundaries of professional journalism.
Whenever you call this newspaper on its ethical lapses, an editor will usually write you back, or the reporter will, and he or she will actually argue the obvious point.
As a professional journalist, and as an editor of more than 20 years, and as one who does not share in the liberalism and bias of mainstream media, Applebaum’s columns are only more examples of why mainstream media are out of touch with mainstream America.
Newspapers are not only dying because of the Internet; it’s also because they are so biased, and because so many reporters, columnists, editors and publishers are so outwardly and unabashedly arrogant.
At any of the newspapers I edited, I would have stepped in and made the corrections, and I would have written up Applebaum for her dishonesty and not adhering to the journalistic code of ethics, which mandates that ALL journalists be truthful and accurate.
Had she committed same errors again and not corrected them, I would have terminated her employment for unethical conduct because she was 1) inaccurate multiple times 2) did not correct her errors 3) REFUSED to correct her errors 4) did not inform her editor of the errors.
By the way, I used to write media commentary under my real name, but MSM have blacklisted me, and in this job market, that has been fatal professionally.
I’m a victim of the exact thing so many liberal journalists say they are on a moral campaign to rid society of: prejudice and discrimination.
Try being a conservative journalist who has been blacklisted, and I’ll show you a new McCarthyism.
A Professional Journalist (dac031) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:16 amI think that maybe you should accept her surrender and move on. This is getting on towards blogwar, which is never pretty.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:27 amMy guess is that Applebaume lives in an insulated bubble where all of her friends and colleagues were angry about Polanski’s arrest and she assumed that was the mood of her readers as well. She’s probably a little shocked by the negative reaction (she’s getting killed in her blog’s comments section) and is clearly on the defensive right now. Patterico is right, she needs to stop digging.
rsrobinson (dee21b) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:34 am[…] same editors will eventually address columnist Anne Applebaum’s serial misrepresentations of the facts of the case, as well as her conflict of interest in it. One doesn’t need courage for that task — […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » A Right-Left consensus building on Polanski (e2f069) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:36 amProfessional Journalist, you sound like you are Ken Grubbs.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:38 amI can’t help wondering how “hollywood” would feel about this case if the rape was committed by Father Polanski, the Catholic priest, rather than Roman Polanski, the famous auteur.
Considering the type of films that have addressed the issue I think it’s safe to say that “Hang ‘im High” would have been the headline in the LATimes.
jrego (0d8ca1) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:42 amWell done, Patterico.
Beldar (c2138e) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:50 amFrom Newsweek:
“Frankly, a lot of newspapers just stink. People worry about the fate of the San Francisco Chronicle, but that paper has been an embarrassment for decades. The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press are in trouble, but they deserve it: for one thing, they spawned Mitch Albom; for another, they’re both pretty awful. The Boston Globe, my current hometown paper, is smug and provincial, and the writing is embarrassingly bad. Much of the Globe reads like a college newspaper. Would any of us really be worse off if these crusty, crappy old relics suddenly disappeared?”
Official Internet Data Office (7eb6da) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:57 amIt doesn’t matter whether she does or doesn’t. Applebaum has pretty much persuaded everyone the grave is deep enough and that she doesn’t want to get out.
All that is needed now is to write the epitaph, throw the flowers in, and go home.
Dusty (7bba43) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:58 amA Professional Journalist,
As another professional journalist, I’m saddened, but hardly surprised, by the MSM’s treatment of you. So many leftists in the media put their ideology before ethics — in fact, there’s a movement among hard left journalists to get their ideology declared the new standard for journalistic ethics under the Orwellian pretense of truthtelling.
My best wishes that you get hired by a journalistic outlet with integrity, or which seeks to regain it.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:08 amDude, what about her statement “And please don’t write back that “he drugged and raped a child” because that is not an accurate description of what happened.” How is that not an accurate description? Did he drug her? Yes. Did he rape her? Yes. Was she a child? Yes.
Jim S. (961462) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:11 amCongrats to Steve Lopez of the LAT for getting this right, and having his column on Polanski picked up by the WSJ (10/1/09, pg A23).
AD - RtR/OS! (827e91) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:16 amPatterico
At my link, and here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/roman_the_rapist
Is a nice pallate clenser of moral seriousness. Susan Estrich says that frankly barely needs to be said. I.e. Polanski is scum.
As for Anne, i think her fear isn’t CONFUSION, but clarity. once people figure out that many of the “facts” she relied on was not true then she will lose what little credibility remains.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:18 amI’ll add one additional, obvious point: Everyone knows the difference between a trial and pleading guilty.
I know, Patterico, that one of your motivations for blogging — one that I entirely share — is to make obscure legal concepts or language or situations more easily understandable to a reasonably intelligent audience of mostly non-lawyers. Certainly there’s plenty that’s mysterious or confusing about the law. But we try to explain the legal jargon and concepts and procedures; we answer questions about it; we try to de-mystify it. I enjoy doing that, and I suspect you do too.
And if non-lawyer Applebaum had, for example, had missed a subtle legal distinction — say, between challenging a conviction through direct appeal and challenging one through a habeas corpus collateral attack — I would not fault her for that. (At least I wouldn’t if her mistake were only in a blog post, even on a WaPo-published blog; if she’d missed the distinction in the course of doing news reporting, that would be less excusable. On the other hand, if she has WaPo editors, even of the sort who merely insert links to articles she hasn’t read, they ought to catch even fairly sophisticated misstatements.)
But to suggest that there is anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between pleading guilty and having a trial — that’s just not remotely believable. It’s not believable that she herself didn’t understand the difference when she wrote her post. (She’s proved that she knows what a guilty plea is in other writing, e.g., this column from 2006 when she wrote that “[i]n a Vienna court last month, [David] Irving pleaded guilty to Holocaust denial — a crime in Austria — and received a three-year jail sentence.”) It’s not believable that her readers wouldn’t have understood the difference. And it’s not believable that her real reason now for refusing to make a public correction is because she thinks her readers couldn’t understand the difference.
No, Anne Applebaum is simply lying when she pretends either that she didn’t understand the difference, or that her readers wouldn’t. She was either inexcusably sloppy, or else she deliberately misstated the facts in a way that made them fit better with her opinions.
Beldar (c2138e) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:18 amAnne Applebaum is a coward. So is Whoopie Goldberg.
There, I said it.
Are you reading this, Ms. Applebaum? Does it make you angry? Fine, prove me wrong.
Lay out for me, with all of your journalistic flourish, what you think actually happened that day in Jack Nicholson’s house. Who is really to blame? The girl? Her mother? Come on, Ms. Applebaum, lay it out for us and if it all makes sense then I’ll be the first to offer a maxima mea culpa.
Until then, statements like “And please don’t write back that “he drugged and raped a child” because that is not an accurate description of what happened.” read as an arrogant, apologetic defense rather than anything resembling professional journalism. Cowardly and despicable.
We’ll wait.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:22 amShe stopped with the shovel, moving on to the
bishop (4e0dda) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:22 am‘daisy cutter’ she’ll hit China any day now.
[…] which the LA District Attorney’s office had/has. Speaking of which, LA District Attorney Patrick Frey (the blogger Patterico) has been on this story like white on risotto for the last few days and is thick in the middle of it […]
‘Okie’ on the Lam » Blog Archive » Thoughts On Child Rapist Roman Polanski & Our American Elite — Are They More Equal Than US? (e2cef7) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:22 amBeldar, Beldar, Beldar,
Don’t you know that when an experienced journalist at a prestigious paper says something, it is by definition true, regardless of the whinings of crabgrass bloggers and other unqualified attackers, such as an obscure county attorney.
Journalists wrote it. I believe it. That settles it!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:33 amHas anybody ever seen “a girl who could be anywhere from 12-25”? If a girl looks 12, you don’t take her for 25. If she looks older than 20, you don’t take her for 12–you are *surprised* when you find out she’s 12.
In addition to all the other claptrap so ably pointed out by our host.
Anwyn (a130c1) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:40 amPatterico’s foot just met AA’s ass. Guess who won?
Pat, I get the suspicion that it must feel good every once in a while to demolish an opponent thoroughly using nothing but facts. A lawyer’s dream?
Absolutely well done, sir.
Tex Lovera (456ded) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:41 amIf this has been highlighted, forgive me.
“And please don’t write back that “he drugged and raped a child” because that is not an accurate description of what happened.”
You need to BOLD the hell out of this statement by AA
Lord Nazh (8d682b) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:44 amIf the case wasn’t so serious Anne’s writings would be hilarious: a prime example of how not to write as a journalist. Unfortunately, this is serious. And she has crossed the line to down-right deception. If ever a time for a news organization to take action, this is it.
Again, this is a serious matter, but I’ve enjoyed this and the previous correspondences the two of you have had. Perhaps monkeys will fly and she’ll recant and come clean.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:45 amSo when AA referred to the trial, did she actually know it was just a plea but dumbed it down for her readers, so as not to get too complicated? Yeah.
PC14 (82e46c) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:48 amSo when AA referred to the trial, did she actually know it was just a plea but dumbed it down for her readers, so as not to get too complicated? Yeah.
PC14 (82e46c) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:48 amBtw, its funny you mention Jack Nicholson, seeing that all of this happened in his house. Not that Nicholson is (by the accounts i read) to blame–he wasn’t there. But guess who was? Angelica Houston (sp?). She allegedly knocked on the door of the bedroom to find out what was going on, but was only charged with cocaine possession.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:48 am“I dislike the reduction of complicated stories to simple facts.”
I dislike simple facts being left out of “complicated” stories.
“In any case, none of these particular issues has much to do with my main point, which were that this was a confusing story and that it’s very peculiar that the Swiss suddenly decided to arrest him now.”
We can agree on that part (bolded), so why don’t you look into in instead of obfuscating the truth.
“I used the word “trial” in the layman’s sense – trial meaning a judicial investigation, court proceedings etc – and see no need to correct, as it would confuse the matter further.”
Furst, youse all say we was lost in Erak and needed help to get unlosted, now youse say somepin bout not knowdin bout trials and such. I’m not shur what youse sayin with them big wurds youse usin, but all us knowded the diffrence tween pleadin guilty and havin a trial, Ain’t you never served jury duty fore??
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:49 amHere: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093004245.html
is the washington post’s unsigned editorial. it is beautiful. it excoriates polanski’s defenders, and says the simple decent truth.
My only criticism is they should have included applebaum when calling out the dishonest and indecent critics.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:03 amWhat part is not true? The drugging? Or the raping?
The reporting.
Official Internet Data Office (4514e0) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:06 amI still have crickets chirping waiting for a response from Fred Hiatt. I guess ethics and truth mean nothing to the Washington Post.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:13 amI wrote to Applebaum’s editor asking that the factual errors be corrected, noting his ethical duty to do so, regardless of the subject matter.
Her morally deficient reasoning on this issue when combined with her refusal to correct factual errors would have resulted in her dismissal at any of the newspapers I ran.
Applebaum unbelievably strays into morally repugnant thinking, but then says she doesn’t endorse what Pervert Polanski said.
Yet she mentions that THE VICTIM OF THIS SEX CRIME appeared to be 12 to 25.
Why did she mention that, unless she believes it is a mitigating factor?
She is being dishonest, or her reasoning is even more adrift than I thought.
Pluto to Applebaum: The state of California does not care if she looked like she was 35.
13-year-olds CANNOT CONSENT TO SEX in California.
For good reason.
13-year-olds, by their very age, do not have a capacity to consent. The age of consent is 18 in California.
Plus, Ignorance of a minor’s age is not a mitigating factor in determining the guilt of sex deviants like Pervert Polanski.
Adults have a responsibility to ensure that the person they are having consensual sex with is not a minor.
Plus, Pervert Polanski admitted under oath that he knew she was 13.
As the arguments in support of Pervert Polanski become even more convoluted, we now have “It’s not Rape-Rape” Whoopi actually redefining a sex crime.
Really, I’m not kidding.
By saying the girl was not a victim of “rape-rape,” – meaning “real” rape — Whoopi and her equally degenerate cohorts throughout the world are really saying that no means yes.
After all, the girl said no.
When a man is told “no,” when his advances are resisted, and when he continues to force himself upon a woman, he is committing rape.
In this case, the crime was committed against a minor.
What does “It’s not rape-rape” Whoopi not understand about that?
When a woman, in this case a girl, says no, she means NO!
NO MEANS NO!
Isn’t that the message we give our sons?
What part of NO do Whoopi and other Pervert Polanski sycophants not understand?
Didn’t “It’s not Rape-Rape” Whoopi say she is only interested in facts?
Then why does she use specious reasoning to construct false arguments and false “facts” to support her guy, Pervert Polanski, the sex crime perp?
Do “It’s not Rape-Rape” Whoopi and her sexually deviant equals throughout the world really think they can now rejoin the campaign against violence, including sexual violence, against women?
When they have essentially said “no” means “yes”?
Have they no shame?
When one of their degenerate own admits to committing a sex crime, they tell us the passage of years, the perp’s family history of having relatives liquidated in The Holocaust, a “youthful indiscretion,” and the “fact” that Pervert Polanski did not intend to harm the girl make his arrest unjust.
Really?
First, there is no statute of limitations on rape.
Second, there is no statute of limitations on fleeing from justice; in fact, it’s just the opposite.
Third, it is insulting to all Holocaust victims and survivors, and their families, to cite how The Holocaust tore apart Pervert Polanski’s family and offer it as a mitigating factor in determining future action against Pervert Polanski.
Fourth, it matters little if he barely survived The Holocaust. Suffering does not give one a right to commit a sex crime. Surviving Nazism is not a mitigating factor when seeking to escape justice.
(In fact, the Nazi elite and Nazi soldiers were quite adept at committing sex crimes and using rape as a weapon of war.)
Fifth, Pervert Polanski was 44 when he committed this sex crime. Hardly youthful. Hardly “an indiscretion.”
Sixth, only the most-chauvinistic and morally challenged man would think that his sexual prowess would mitigate forced sex, which is a sex crime, and that such forced sex, RAPE, would not harm a girl.
The elites who argue these and other easily refutable points are really beyond contempt.
Oh, and I’m tired of hearing the blame-the-mother excuse.
It does not matter if the VICTIM’S mother encouraged, wanted and/or knew her daughter was at risk and would probably be subject to Pervert Polanski’s sexual advances.
What matters is the Pervert Polanski committed rape and was getting off easy because of the plea bargain, to spare the victim.
I’m also tired of Pervert Polanski supporters saying the victim has forgiven the sexual deviant, and that fact should therefore be a mitigating factor.
Hogwash.
The case is People vs. Polanski. He committed a crime against the state that he has not faced sentencing for after entering a guilty plea.
This case demands justice.
“It’s not Rape-Rape” Whoopi says that Europeans see things differently from us.
Sorry, Whoopi, but you must live in a really artificial alternative universe.
By a 70-30 margin in one poll, French citizens say Polanski should face justice.
In fact, some French politicians, seeing the public backlash against the perverse artistic elite, are backtracking on their support of Pervert Polanski.
Let us not forget that he illegally provided two drugs to a minor, similar to jerks who use substances to knock out women whom they then rape.
Lastly, “It’s not Rape-Rape” Whoopi and everyone else who says a sex crime was not committed and that Pervert Polanski should be forgiven should be condemned by every single feminist and women’s organization throughout the world.
That they haven’t been condemned is certaily troubling.
A Professional Journalist (dac031) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:13 amPCD: I am not Ken Grubbs.
The newspapers I managed were small, and I am from a rural area.
I don’t know who Ken Grubbs is, but nice try.
Try responding to my points, rather than attempting to identify me, which you did not do accurately.
A Professional Journalist (dac031) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:22 amThank you, Brother Bradley, but I’ve given up on being hired.
Conservatives just don’t do well in MSM, even ones who adhere to a strict ethical standard of facts and eliminating all bias from stories.
As for the point you make about truthtelling, that is part of The Associated Press’ new mantra, if you listen to the head of AP.
A Professional Journalist (dac031) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:24 amSo to summarize Ms. Applebaums retort:
– I lied, but you can’t prove it using only the facts;
– my readers are idiots;
– my readers are idiots;
– my readers are idiots.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:32 amAA should be required to read the transcript of the victim’s testimony aloud to a mixed group all the way to the end, including the crying part when the 13-year old got home.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:32 amProfessional, If you look closely, I’m largely agreeing with you.
RE: Ken Grubbs. Ken was the Editorial Page editor at the Orange County Register before the county bankruptcy. He was made the scape goat for the paper’s backing and favorable, misleading press because he was the only Conservative on the paper. A reporter by the name of Chris Knap was the one who should have been fired for misleading the public about Tax Assessor Robert Citron’s foolish scheme to continue investing in Reverse Dervivatives in a market where they are a disaster.
By and large, I do not see editors and “reporters” following any form of professional ethics or reportage of the truth.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:32 amAA should be required to read the transcript of the victim’s testimony aloud to a mixed audience, all the way to the end, including the crying part after the 13-year old got home.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:33 amthis is what i wrote to the editor:
Mr. Hiatt,
I am sure I am not the only person to write to you today about Applebaum’s terrible and fact challenged posts on your “post partisan” blog. Let me quote from another rebuking other false claims:
“Roman Polanski’s apologists — as typified by the comments of Swiss filmmaker Otto Weisser, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, film and TV celebrity Whoopi Goldberg — don’t let basic facts, or even simple decency for that matter, get in the way of their defense of this notorious director.”
Who wrote that? Your own editorial board. They then go on to recite and then denounce every puny fact-challenged defense offered to Mr. Polanski’s inexcusable behavior that Ms. Applebaum offered. It is good to know that the editorial board at WAPO disagrees with her, but I would have appreciated a more specific calling out of your columnist and a demand for corrections.
Meanwhile, in the face of withering evidence of factual inaccuracies she has allegedly written an email (here: https://patterico.com/2009/10/01/anne-applebaum-telling-the-whole-truth-now-would-be-too-confusing/) stating at least twice that it would be too “confusing” to readers to correct the record. This may be just a blog, but it is the Washington post’s blog and that kind of blasé attitude about factual accuracy should not be tolerated on any level at your paper.
But to a certain extent that, and the issue of her conflict of interest, is a red herring. The real problem is moral. Now of course we want columnist to disagree with each other and even to hold extreme views, but some views are simply beyond the pale. The idea that it is ever okay for a 40+ year old man to have sex with a minor is one of those attitudes. Yes, that is viewpoint discrimination, but seeing that I have never seen an avowed Nazi or a member of NAMBLA on your editorial pages , I believe it is fair to say that your willingness to accept diversity of thought has its limits. I submit that her views should be considered outside the limits of reasoned discourse.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 10:42 amAre we really surprised by the behaviour of this hack from the WaPo? This paper was selling access to administration officials at dinner parties. SELLING ACCESS. The only question about how AA and WaPo are handling this issue should be how much they’re charging Polanski for their support.
Houston Native (b90bc6) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:03 amI don’t care about the factual errors. The LA prosecutey people are very clear on the facts. How some WaPo propaganda hoochie spins it isn’t going to taint anything. Real people are easily made to understand that the anal rape of children is a bad thing what needs to be punished. Nothing Annie writes changes that, and it’s amusing to think she thought it could.
No. It just needs to be noted that Annie lurvs her some polish child rapers for some ungodly reason. Ick.
Beastly cooze.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:07 amAnne Applebaum, like many on the Left, probably truly believes that her opinions comprise an accurate description of the way the world is.
She and her Lilliputian ilk should heed the dictum of intellectual giant Pat Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
doc_benway (c4ba77) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:18 amI think what Phillips and Applebaum really meant is “it would conflict with the narrative I’m telling”.
To put it bluntly, I believe that they are both lying propagandists.
LarryD (feb78b) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:24 amBravo Patterico!
Also, when I read your comment that “it wouldn’t be confusing to tell readers the truth. It would merely detract from Applebaum’s ridiculous position”, it struck me as the common thread that links the MSM’s unprofessional behavior.
If you’re pushing an ideology, you can’t be wrong. They’re no longer selling news, they’re selling infallibility.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:48 amLet’s see, he gave a minor (that’s what we call 13 year olds in Arizona)champagne, then he have her part of a Qualuude (we consider this to be a drug in the fine state of Arizona)and then he proceeded to have sex (orally, vaginally, anally) with her after she stated multiple (I lost count after awhile)times that she wanted him to stop (we call sexual intercouse without consent rape in Arizona).
I must be dumb and totally ineducable because when I read the transcript of the grand jury testimony and re-read the testimony I conclude that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.
PRM (310ebf) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:50 amWow, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes right now. I’m glad we live in a country where it’s incredibly awkward to be exposed as a defender of a filthy child rapist. Good work, Patterico!
NukeRidingCowboy (2e32cf) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:50 am@#58
Agreed.
As George Costanza counseled: “Jerry, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”
doc_benway (c4ba77) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:55 amAll these words and letters confuse me.
Dopey (a812c5) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:10 pmI do find it amusing when a journalist (usually described as a person who knows little about anything trying to explain everything to everyone) gets into an argument with a lawyer about law. Isn’t that the epitome of showing up to a gun fight with a wad of chewing gum (I can’t even say knife in this case.)?
SomeOtherSteve (21b6f3) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:10 pmThe most disappointing thing is that she’ll openly rely on the vagueness of “there is evidence…” in regards to whether Polanski knew his victim’s age, but won’t tolerate any mention of the not-so-vague evidence that “he drugged and raped a child”.
roy (a1e331) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:18 pmThe only thing I find confusing is Ms. Applebaum’s decision to continue this discussion with you. She should have quit digging long ago and acknowledged her mistakes. Instead, she has gotten defensive and made her situation worse.
Comment by Bru — 10/1/2009 @ 7:38 am
She so needs to be right, to someone, and to have the last word, that she can’t help herself.
How many times will she stick her finger in the socket?
Matador (ad4464) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:34 pmwow. Just wow.
I’ve read the testimony of the 13 year old girl. You know, the one who was drugged with liquor and pills and who kept saying “NO!” over and over again.
Rape is not an accurate description of what happened?
Does that mean that Applebaum now joins the Whoopi Goldberg “Not Rape-Rape” school of analysis?
Just wow. That a piece of trash.
Paul A'Barge (14825c) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:57 pm[…] Roman Polanski is a rapist and a pedophile. He should go to jail. Written by Chris F. Masse on October 1, 2009 — Leave a Comment What a jerk: […]
Roman Polanski is a rapist and a pedophile. He should go to jail. | Midas Oracle .ORG (48057e) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:58 pmIt has been awhile since I subjected myself to re-reading every word of the Geimer testimony, so I forgot the details about what happened before they went to the Jacuzzi. As my memory was refreshed, I was struck by the similarity between Polanski’s drug-aided rape of a 13-year-old girl and the alcohol-aided statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl celebrated in Eve Ensler’s infamous so-stupid-it’s-parody-proof play The Vagina Monologues.
I would normally hesitate before foisting this upon you folks, but we are discussing the disgusting reality of Polanski, and it is relevant to the discussion. I have left out some of the more salacious details, believe it or not.
The following is the conclusion of the segment titled “The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could,” about a woman reflecting on her troubled childhood: Her mother warning her not to touch herself, being punched in her crotch by a bully, accidentally tearing her vaginal wall on a bedpost, being violently raped by a drunken family friend, and her feeling that her “coochi snorcher” is a “bad luck zone,” and the encounter with a 24-year-old woman that makes it all better:
I pause at this point because the following final part was rewritten by Ensler under pressure from conservative writers who wanted the play banned on college campuses, where it was a favorite project of Women’s Studies departments. A Georgetown journalist, Robert Swope, was fired from The Hoya newspaper when he wrote a critical editorial about “Coochi Snorcher.”
Here is the revised version of “Coochi Snorcher” that you will hear if you ever subject yourself to the Monologues nowadays:
Now, here is how the original version of “Coochi Snorcher” ended:
The Vagina Monologues is inexplicably incredibly popular among accomplished actresses, including Glenn Close, Jane Fonda, and (wait for it) Whoopi Goldberg, for whom Ensler specifically wrote the monologue titled “My Angry Vagina.” IMHO, nothing more needs to be said about the danger of letting the Harvey Weinstein-types position themselves as a “moral compass” than the fact that The Vagina Monologues hasn’t disgraced the careers of the women who have performed it. It is in this world that rapist Polanski is a victim and a hero.
L.N. Smithee (268d81) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:02 pmFWIW, I have seen a photograph of the victim at the age of the crime. She doesn’t look 25. She doesn’t look 18. She doesn’t look 14.
She looks exactly her age, 13 years old, and no one could mistake she was barely a teenager. NO REASONABLE PERSON. That’s my opinion, but it’s a strong one.
Applebaum is hard to figure. What is she driving at, really? what prompts her concealment of facts and conflicts of interest?
I can’t comprehend what she is even driving at.
How would a complacent or even knowing mother excuse Polanski or mitigate his acts? Could she explain that point?
If she believes the girl knew she was there for sex, wanted drugs, had a fine old time, but meant to deceive victimn Polanski about her age and she and/or her mother tried to “shake him down” with a criminal complaint, I wish she would come straight out and say so. Perhaps being straighforward would confuse her poor readers.
If that were true Polanski still admitted he knew he was having sex with a 13 year old under oath.
If he got cold feet after conviction, He could perhaps have withdrawn his plea and gone to trial with the shakedown theory. I might have liked to see how far that got him.
Applebaum disgusts me with her dishonesty. I hope WaPo makes her correct or better yet, cans someone so determined to obscure and dissemble.
But I am very curious what motivates her. It makes so little sense.
SarahW (f65b90) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:06 pmDear God, I have never witnessed a more righteous dismantling. This will be a case study someday. Well done, Patterico.
Rob (128aba) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:08 pmI hope Fred Hiatt is making big bucks. This is gonna be a headache.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:12 pmAA isn’t a junior beat reporter. She has mana, at least within the pooost, and in the beltway, and in higher journalism.
Fred against the journos’ self-anointed elite. Fred against the editorial board.
Fred against the readers.
Wonder if he’s got a pretty good idea for a novel. Might have to take some time off to concentrate.
A Professional Journalist,
Well, if this Libertarian journalist can help you out, just say the word. You can also find me over at http://www.abriefhistory.org.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (73f1de) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:31 pmAnnies problem is she has hitched her career wagon to a narrative that is demonstrably wrong and can’t admit it without abandoning the narrative. If she abandons the narrative she loses her mojo with her homies.
glenn (757adc) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:41 pmI would write that novel but I don’t think I can manage to write dialogue for a character who would defend Polanski. A failure of imagination I guess.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:44 pmHave tried to make this comment several times today (in places where it would be more on topic) but the site has been unstable for me.
Reviewing what I have read of the case it would seem to me that in this case Polanski is a child porographer as well as child rapist. Correct me if I am wrong but he did ask her to remove her blouse for photos, correct?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:47 pmThere are many astonishing aspects to this continuing dialog – the most astonishing being AA’s role in continuing it. I for one enjoy the posted back and forth engagement and disagree with comments that question your continued engagement. Most of the observations I would make have already been addressed, but a few remain.
One of the most shocking assertions by AA is her apparent admission to being present at the time of the “alleged” rape. Here I thought that only Mr. Polanski and the young girl knew EXACTLY what did or didn’t happen that night. Not being a percipient witness to the event I only know what the principals have stated under oath and what the physical evidence points to. Additionally I might be aware of other off the record statements concerning that night – but none of these pieces of “evidence” would allow me to state as a matter of fact that the statement “he drugged and raped a child” is “not an accurate description of what happened.” That would appear to be a strong and definitive factual statement from someone that doesn’t like complicated situations reduced to simple facts. Obviously antagonism is generally reserved for inconvenient facts.
Additionally there is a huge difference between the laymen’s notion of “evidence” and admissible evidence. To say nothing about persuasive evidence. Polanski stated under oath he knew the girl was 13, period. Any Polanski statement to the contrary before or after this under oath admission merely establishes that Polanski is a liar or a liar and a perjurer depending on the underlying truth. It is a huge stretch, even for a MSM journalist to characterize statements in opposition to sworn testimony as “evidence”.
JDBlackaby (1309cf) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:50 pmCan i make a “bleg” btw?
Does anyone know where there are non-porno pics of this girl back when she was 13? i mean what i am getting at is, AA says that she looked plausibly 18+… well, okay, let’s see the evidence, then.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 1:57 pmhere is the pic I keep seeing
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:05 pmApplebaum was right. I’m too confused by patterico’s long, wordy post and legal – sounding court transcript. Next time, can you just photoshop Polanski’s face to look like Hitler with a caption that reads “I like little girls”? It gets the point across without all of this cumbersome discussion of facts and evidence.
lee (86706b) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:07 pmSarah W is exactly right. This is obviously what Applebaum thinks. The mother sold the girl for the day, the girl was in on it, and Roman Polanski has been the victim of this shakedown all these years.
The deviousness of the Geimers is incredible, according to the evidence Applebaum has heard from “people”. Apparently they told Polanski she was 13– but they were such dishonest people he didn’t even believe that.
MayBee (f57cc4) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:07 pmReally, it’s like entrapment for poor Roman Polanski. Imagine Mrs. Geimer telling Polanski that Samantha was 13, knowing that he would think she was actually older but would want to fantasize that she was younger. He should never have trusted these people.
MayBee (f57cc4) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:12 pmHappy, if that is what she looked like that day, the defense “she didn’t look 13!” is BS. and anyone who says they don’t know she is under age is lying. unless a person has a disease, that is not how an adult looks. at most that picture could be of a 15 year old and that is pushing it.
Not that i am surprised, mind you.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:15 pmIt’s official: Anne Applebaum is an utter dunderhead.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:20 pmBeyond that I imagine once she opened her mouth there was no way a for real adult could mistake her for 25. I read that transcript. The kid was a kid.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:20 pmI remember a few years ago – on the dirty socialist NPR what I used to listen to… there was this story about how in Poland, anti-semitism was totally not a thing, and that in fact Polish Jews were a lot celebrated.
It’s a for real dealio… maybe it lends some insight into why Applebaum is whoring for the Polish government.
brb.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:24 pmHappy
No sh– on that. here’s taranto commenting on the case (he is on the side of angels on this one):
> She testified that despite being under the influence of these substances, she said “no” at each stage of the sexual encounter: when he kissed her, when he placed his mouth on her genitals (or, as she put it in a heartbreaking malapropism, when “he started performing cuddliness”), when he performed intercourse, and when he sodomized her.
“Cuddliness” shiver. what a bastard Polanski is. F-it, its official. i am never buying or watching any of his movies. Sure, chinatown was great, but there are lines to draw. i would boycott woody allen, too, but frankly i already was for quality reasons. 🙂 seriously, i don’t get why anyone watches his crap.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:28 pmYou should have also asked Applebottom if she would be so keen on rushing to defend him if he were Polanski the auto mechanic or Polanski the police officer instead of an artiste.
Hey, what if Polanski were a Republican senator? Would Anne jump to his defense? Why or why not?
the wolf (85e509) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:31 pm“As a professional journalist, and as an editor of more than 20 years, and as one who does not share in the liberalism and bias of mainstream media, Applebaum’s columns are …”
Nice dangling participle there Mr. Professional Journalist.
cassandra in MT (5a5d33) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:32 pmno. This is what I’m remembering. Which is interesting. Poland has gobs of anti-semitism though. Still… it’s not hard to hypothesize that the Polish government would a lot not want anti-semitism inflamed, and probably wants the polish jewish child rapist dude out of the news as soon as possible. That would just be smart. So Annie is doing her part I guess.
That’s my theory for now cause SarahW’s right. Makes no sense.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:37 pmYup. That makes sense. At this point Annie is perfectly happy just being thought a dumb beastly cooze as long as that obscures the fact that she whored out her WaPo publishing privileges to her Polish government husband. That’s a big deal even at a whorehouse like the WaPo.
She’s so close to being cold busted, and she’s scared scared scared.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:43 pmYep, Poland has almost no jews left but the Poles are convinced that they still run everything …
Nutty really.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:45 pmI used to feel great sympathy for Poland’s plight after WWII, until I read about their populace’s eager willingness to help the SS find the Jews trying to hide from certain execution.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:53 pm…and I won’t even get into the Swiss during the war. “What? Those mile – long train cars held people in them? Why, we had no idea!”
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:54 pmPatrick,
corwin (07884c) — 10/1/2009 @ 2:55 pmYou know the Boxing Commission wouldn’t sanction a match between you and Ms Applebaum .Still , the terminal stupidity and ability to rationalize is impressive.
Okay two points from the psych report. Polanski had already on a previous occasion photographed the victim topless, on this ocassion he took nude photos in the jacuzzi.
Also that report states the arresting LAPD Officer was a Sgt. Vanatter. Is this the same Vanatter that was involved in the OJ case? (Just idle curiosity, it has no real relevance to the case.)
Have Blue (854a6e) — 10/1/2009 @ 3:00 pmIn this respect she is absolutely correct. I do not understand her support for Polanski. I do not understand her defense of her support for Polanski. I do not understand why she would choose to continue to dispute the facts based on her own words.
I guess she is right, some of us are just too dumb to understand her.
Huey (b957d9) — 10/1/2009 @ 3:01 pmAnne Applebaum is utter filth. I can no longer read any of her written work or the Washington Post without thinking of her vomit-inducing defense of child rape. Sad, because I so admired her work on the Soviet gulags, some of which was introduced and discussed in a class here at her alma mater, the London School of Economics.
Do you understand, AA, that you are actively destroying the career and reputation that it took you a lifetime to build?
I will make it my personal goal to ensure that every single person I encounter who references her or her work is aware of her defense of this rapist.
LSE Student
LSE Student (6f0c8f) — 10/1/2009 @ 3:34 pmLondon, United Kingdom
This correcting the MSM is getting tedious.
It’s always one thing or another, all of them pointing to incompetence and/or arrogance.
Like Mark Twain said, if you read the newspapers, you are misinformed.
I no longer do.
Whitehall (e5cbf5) — 10/1/2009 @ 3:39 pmOnly partly related, but Patterico has asked several times how anyone could claim knowledgeably that Polanski “only did it once”.
They can’t — he brags about other teenaged conquests in his memoir:
http://p.ly/1Oja1
Justin T. (9828c0) — 10/1/2009 @ 3:56 pmOur media betters have long argued that we “can’t handle the truth.” That’s why we need gatekeepers to filter the information. Otherwise we may not draw the correct conclusions and hold the correct opinions that we so obviously need to be fed.
We’re either easily confused or racist zenophobes bitterly clinging to our primitive belief systems and weaponry.
Apparently we haven’t yet developed the proper class consciousness that would motivate us to vote in our best interests.
Obviously treating us with more and more contempt is the key to successfully indoctrinating us to believe that our elites simply know better than we can possibly suspect. In all matters.
Steve (f79f95) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:26 pmprofessional newspapers have a code of ethics
LOL!!
ppaint (a31085) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:40 pmAnne has stepped in dog crap. But rather than smile ruefully and wipe it off, she’s going to continue insisting that it’s just mud.
Scott (219e11) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:43 pmThe undercurrent here is the increasing interest in Hollywood with older men having sex with underage girls. American Beauty, which I thought was a mess but got an Oscar, was about that very thing. Woody Allen is now weighing in with an expert opinion. It goes all the way back to “Lolita.” These older guys are tired of adult women and fantasize about sex with children. What is interesting is the support they are getting from women like Applebaum. This is Clinton all over again. These poor women have men around them who are gay or they are dreaming about screwing children. What a life !
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:45 pm@75 “remove her blouse for photos” There was a period in our culture, running roughly from “Pretty Baby” to “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” when nude underage and barely-of-age girls could be photographed and filmed for mainstream entertainment. I rely upon you lawyers to figure out the legality of this kind of art, but now the mainstream culture, as lurid as it is, has shrunk away from that kind of thing. This is no defense of Polanski’s clear and admitted crime.
gp (cb5e61) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:47 pmgp at 103 – I have done some more reading on this case. Polanski had photographed the girl at least once before, without her mother being present. On that occasion he had photographed her topless. He had specifically asked the mother not to come to the shoot in order to keep it less inhibited. What I have read states that the girl did not want her mother to see these photos but that at some point she did and refused to sign the release to allow their publication.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 10/1/2009 @ 4:56 pmHave Blue- so what does that information say to you?
MayBee (f57cc4) — 10/1/2009 @ 5:34 pmSo she dislikes reducing complicated stories to simple facts but she doesn’t want to confuse her readers by presenting facts to get her story straight.
Wow, what an incredibly stupid, cynical c*nt.
Be more honest if she said, I think Polanski is hot and I don’t care what he did 30 years ago to a 13 year old. I still would shag him on the bath room floor of a Times Square Popeyes
HeavenSent (01a566) — 10/1/2009 @ 5:47 pmAA: ‘I used the word “trial” in the layman’s sense – trial meaning a judicial investigation, court proceedings etc – and see no need to correct, as it would confuse the matter further.’
Translation: He’s picking on me and he’s a lawyer, so I’ll claim that he’s using lawyer-ish terms to nitpick. That kind of claim worked against my brother when I was 5 so I bet it’s still good.
MamaAJ (5274bd) — 10/1/2009 @ 6:06 pmYou nailed this so well. If I were her editor, I would be angry at the way she has tried to wriggle out of making corrections and taking responsibility.
Anne, for the sake of journalism, take responsibility and correct the record or get out of journalism. You have an obligation to the public to set the record straight.
Anita Busch (fc416d) — 10/1/2009 @ 6:08 pmAgain, don’t be surprised by AA and the WaPo. They were selling ‘salons’ for access. Influence is just another source of revenue.
Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html
Houston Native (fcb2b5) — 10/1/2009 @ 6:16 pmI think Applebaum she should keep defending herself, and keep lying, rationalizing, and blaming others. The longer she exposes herself and her desperate attempts to spin this, the more time the public has to see how truly low the bar of modern journalism has been set.
Ethics and truth are continually pushed to the back burner for the sake of the narrative.
This is her professional death-by-lies unfolding, driven completely by her, and she doesn’t even realize it. It’s becoming surreal.
Dana (863a65) — 10/1/2009 @ 6:24 pmEvery time I read more about how Anne is defending the anal rapings and the having sex with children I just want to go to my room and shut the door and listen to music really loud. I want to live in a more better little country than one where people write in newspapers about how they’re just ducky with the child rapers.
When it’s time for dinner come get me but knock really really loud don’t just open the door like you always do.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 10/1/2009 @ 6:44 pmI wanna see Patterico’s Sack Dance on Youtube!
BAM! Down goes Applebaum! Applesauce BAYBEE, nothin’ but Applesauce!
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/1/2009 @ 8:36 pm“Anne Applebaum thinks you can’t handle the truth. I wonder if her editor agrees. His name is Fred Hiatt and he can reached at hiattf@washpost.com.”
Anybody who wonders hasn’t read the WaPoo for the past several years. If anything, telling the truth would rouse Hiatt’s ire worse than anything else.
Barry (9ef9c1) — 10/2/2009 @ 7:22 amComment by Dana:
“This is her professional death-by-lies unfolding, driven completely by her, and she doesn’t even realize it. It’s becoming surreal.”
Following up on my last comment, I don’t think so. I believe that part of her job is to lie through her teeth for the rich, powerful or well-connected members of the establishment (when BS alone won’t do the job).
Barry (9ef9c1) — 10/2/2009 @ 7:55 amBravo.
Fritz (b79040) — 10/2/2009 @ 10:22 am“As a professional journalist, and as an editor of more than 20 years, and as one who does not share in the liberalism and bias of mainstream media, Applebaum’s columns are …”
When did Applebaum suddenly become a liberal columnist? I thought she was another neo-con, but honestly haven’t been familiar enough with her career to know the difference.
Sadly, just like the London student above, her continued defense of Polanski is guaranteeing that I will never be able to see her byline without that sickening feeling that I have right now; her politics are becoming irrelevant.
Brian Griffin (e805a0) — 10/2/2009 @ 11:10 amI can’t believe Applebaum sent you an e-mail. Kudos to her. I didn’t even think your criticisms were that apropos. Thanks for printing it up. Did you print the full e-mail?
She’s dead right that all of those points she covers have very little to do with her main points in the “Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski” post (talk about a blog entry title that reduces a complicated story to a simple assertion). Peculiar timing and a confusing (to her) story (with a confession of guilt and flight from justice) are not sufficient reasons to call Polanski’s arrest outrageous (what assumptions underlie her argument?).
“Trial”–notice that she doesn’t claim that she knew there was no “trial” in the matter (for the laity: I am using the specialized, legalistic definition of “trial”).
What does “Amounts to the same thing, I’m afraid.” refer to? What two things that are tantamount to each other?
Re: evidence of age. How can Applebaum keep repeating the 25 outer range when the girl lived with her mother, had to call her mother to check in, etc. And how does age complicate the girl’s saying no?
Ann is somewhat right about “drugged and raped”. This is a dysphemism. Polanski gave the girl champagne and then a qualude and then raped her. He didn’t slip her a mickey.
I like that Applebaum says “you win” but then contradicts all of the points you made and stands by the original column–which was presented to the reader as based on all those points which she now says don’t matter–with even fewer reasons than she began with.
Note that she says “Swiss decided to arrest” when, as far as I know, the Swiss had no choice but to arrest him under the terms of our extradition treaty and this was the the first time the Swiss had been asked to do so.
One must conclude that Applebaum did not have a sufficient grasp of the facts of this story to come to a publishable position on it. She has got do something about this. It’s a great lesson for all of us.
KingKong (600d5b) — 10/2/2009 @ 11:07 pm[…] be so completely blinkered when it comes to the Polanski arrest. Outside of Anne Applebaum (who has doubled down on victim-bashing), the defenders of Polanski come from the entertainment community, specifically […]
The Casting Couch | Blog of the Moderate Left (017442) — 10/3/2009 @ 1:52 am[…] so completely blinkered when it comes to the Polanski arrest. Outside of Anne Applebaum (who has doubled down on victim-bashing), the defenders of Polanski come from the entertainment community, specifically […]
Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » The Casting Couch (70fd32) — 10/3/2009 @ 1:55 am“Polanski is a poor put-upon old man who survived the Holocaust”
None of the evils which have befallen Polanski and which are claimed as substitutes for punishment for his rape of a child, namely his suffering in WW2 (great though it was) and his oppression by communism, occurred *after* the rape. I know of no legal or moral principle which allows criminals to serve time in advance of the crime.
“No, Ms. Applebaum, the victim did not testify that she called her mother to ask for permission to have her picture taken before getting into the jacuzzi.”
People’s arguments never cease to amaze me. Even if mom had outright said, “Yes, please have sex with my daughter,” Polanski’s crime would still be both rape and rape-rape. I know of no legal or moral principle which allows mom to consent to sex on her daughter’s behalf. And neither does Polanski.
tehag (df265e) — 10/4/2009 @ 5:32 amAccording to the transcript, Polanski told the girl as he was fondling her: “Don’t tell your mother about this.” The fact that he said this (a fact he never denied) is conclusive evidence that he knew the girl was underage. Would he have asked a 25-year-old not to tell her mother about having sex with her? I highly doubt it. Polanski could have told people whatever he wanted afterwards, he could have spun this ever which way. But as often happens with criminals, it’s the proverbial slip of the tongue that betrays what they really know and what they really think.
Amused (c7f982) — 10/7/2009 @ 6:36 amYeah, but I was dating her mother at the time…
kidding! 🙂
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 10/7/2009 @ 6:52 amI wonder if Anne Applebaum still thinks the truth is too confusing.
JD (c26e0b) — 10/7/2009 @ 7:03 am