Maher sorry for politically incorrect comment

Back to the Media's Behavior Page

Wednesday September 19, 8:29 pm Eastern Time

(UPDATE: updates with Bill Maher apology, ABC statement; previous NEW YORK)

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Bill Maher, the irreverent host of late-night talk show ``Politically Incorrect,'' apologized on Wednesday for saying some U.S. military actions were ``cowardly'' -- a remark many said was not only politically incorrect but offensive.

His televised comments Monday night prompted retailer Sears, Roebuck and Co. and delivery giant FedEx Corp. (NYSE:FDX - news) to cancel their advertising on the program, citing complaints they had received from angry viewers. The show is broadcast on ABC, a unit of Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - news).

In a statement issued through his publicist, Maher said his views ``should have been expressed differently.''

``In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong,'' Maher said.

According to a transcript on ABC's Web site (http://www.abc.com), Maher made the reference while discussing past U.S. military campaigns.

``We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away,'' he said. ``That's cowardly.''

Maher contrasted the U.S. military actions to those taken by attackers who flew hijacked commercial airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week. President George W. Bush has called the attacks ``cowardly acts''.

``Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly,'' Maher said.

In his statement Wednesday, Maher said his criticism of U.S. military actions ``was meant for politicians who, fearing public reaction, have not allowed our military to do the job they are obviously ready, willing and able to do, and who now will, I'm certain, as they always have, get it done.''

SHOW OF SUPPORT

In a statement supporting Maher, ABC said his program is ``a show that celebrates freedom of speech and encourages the animated exchange of ideas and opinions. While we remain sensitive to the current climate following last week's tragedy ... there needs to remain a forum for the expression of our nation's diverse opinions.''

A spokeswoman for Sears (NYSE:S - news), the nation's fourth-largest retailer, said the company stood by its position.

``Bill and his guests have every right to voice their freedom of speech, and we applaud that,'' Sears spokeswoman Lee Antonio told Reuters. ``However, we have the right to air our broadcast advertising where we feel it's appropriate to reach out to our customers.''

Maher's publicist, Cece York, said Maher would address the issue again on his show Wednesday night. ``Nerves are really raw right now, and Bill is sensitive to that,'' she said. ``It's a very sensitive time for everyone right now.''

Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001 6:29 p.m. EDT

TV Stations Dump Bill Maher

Exclusive: At least three TV stations have dumped ultra-snide "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher because of his controversial remarks.

Starting tonight, the ABC stations in Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, and Lincoln, Neb., have dropped "Politically Incorrect" from their schedules until further notice, Ray Cole, president and CEO of Citadel Communications, which owns the three stations, told NewsMax.com this afternoon.

"We wanted to give the show an ample opportunity to explain, and in my view apologize," Cole told NewsMax. But he was disappointed in ABC's inaction and Maher's spinning and feeble attempts at apology, which initially included a statement that he's "never been good at grieving" on TV.

Sears, which along with Federal Express yanked ads from "Politically Incorrect," told Reuters news agency: "Bill and his guests have every right to voice their freedom of speech, and we applaud that. However, we have the right to air our broadcast advertising where we feel it's appropriate to reach out to our customers."

In a statement issued through a P.R. flack Wednesday, Maher said his views "should have been expressed differently."

"In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong," the statement said.

"Too little, too late," said Cole, who was surprised that NewsMax was already reporting his decision, which had been made just this afternoon.

One of the viewers who flooded Cole's stations with complaints about Maher was NewsMax reader Neal J. Fisher, a Drake University student who told us "at least 50 people on campus" were involved in the dump-Maher movement. "There's been a much larger response from the community," he found out after contacting the station.

Cole said he didn't know of any other ABC stations pre-empting Maher yet. But there's hope. Take a stand by contacting your local ABC station and urging it to cancel "Politically Incorrect." Also, to e-mail ABC: abc.audience.relations@abc.com or netaudr@abc.com.

And we salute Ray Cole and his company and Neal J. Fisher and his fellow activists for taking their stand.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
War on Terrorism

WHITE HOUSE RIPS 'POLITICALLY INCORRECT' STAR

September 27, 2001
By DEBORAH ORIN

WASHINGTON - President Bush's spokesman yesterday blasted late-night funnyman Bill Maher for painting the U.S. military as more "cowardly" than the kamikaze terrorists who killed over 6,500 civilians.

"It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said during his daily briefing.

"This is not a time for remarks like that. It never is."

Even before the White House weighed in, insiders said the future of Maher's ABC-TV show, "Politically Incorrect," was in doubt because angry sponsors canceled ads and some affiliate stations now refuse to air it.

Sources say senior brass at Disney, ABC's parent company, are livid and may kill Maher's show.

Maher touched off the storm on his first show after the terror attacks - six days later - when he agreed with conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza that the hijackers were "warriors" because they were willing to die.

"We have been the cowards," Maher fumed. "Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it - not cowardly."

Federal Express and Sears, the show's two major prestige advertisers, yanked their commercials in outrage, and as many as 12 ABC affiliates refused to air Maher's show.

A few days later, Maher apologized, via his publicist, saying he only meant to target the U.S. government, "politicians" and Bush's missile-defense plan.

Maher said he never meant to suggest that U.S. troops in uniform "are anything but courageous and valiant."

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM
NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2001 NYP Holdings, Inc.

Maher’s Final Half Hour
Why PI should go.

ll Maher, host of ABC's Politically Incorrect, is under attack. Sears and Federal Express pulled their sponsorships of the show. Viewers are angry. Several affiliates have dropped him. His show is teetering on the brink of cancellation, all because he said that the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center weren't cowards. Rather, he said, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly."

Now, I'm torn. On the one hand, Maher is not entirely wrong, though his comments were poorly timed and mean-spirited. The Clinton policy of risk-free symbolic strikes against Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was hardly gutsy.

On the other hand, Politically Incorrect deserves to be canceled more than any show not currently on the WB. Maher, his producers and fans have long contended that the show makes a valuable contribution by inviting apathetic Americans into the "national conversation." Of course, it's a mystery to me why any American who can't be bothered to pay attention to politics unless Pamela Anderson is discussing it should be welcome in that conversation.

I'm embarrassed to admit I've been on Politically Incorrect a few times but will never again. Still, I think I've identified the two basic problems with the show: the concept and the host.

Politically Incorrect is one of the last icons of the 1990s conflation of celebrity and politics: George magazine, Murphy Brown, "policy summits" at the White House for the likes of Billy Crystal and Richard Dreyfuss, "serious" speeches by Barbra Streisand.

The result of this phenomenon was a profoundly cynical approach to important questions. It said that fame, as opposed to serious work, intelligence or experience, was the best criterion for determining who has a legitimate opinion.

For example, in every issue of George, the editors asked a Hollywood star what they would do if they were president. The first thing Melanie Griffith would do is pass a law saying "no one should make more than $1 billion a year." Such stuff may offer valuable insight into how Melanie Griffith thinks — on the odd chance someone finds value in such things — but in a discussion of public policy, this is as helpful as cricket chirping.

Similarly, the idea behind Politically Incorrect is to get a bunch of pretty people together and have them argue with politicians and other political professionals (journalists, activists, etc.).

Of course, the real aim of the show is to make fun of conservatives while sounding "politically incorrect." As Maher told Playboy in 1997, "Ninety percent of show-business people are nutty liberals." So the liberal seats are filled with lefty comedians, movie stars, and rappers. This leaves the conservative seats to mockable right-wingers. Worse, not only does the audience root for the celebrities, but the host and producers do too.

Which gets us to the second problem with the show. Bill Maher is anything but an impartial host. He sucks up to Hollywood liberals because A) he needs to get them back on the show, B) he usually agrees with them, and C) they tend to be wildly ignorant.

Maher calls himself a libertarian, but the fact is he's a libertine socialist; he favors guilt-free promiscuity and legal drugs, but everything else is eligible for a government takeover. Remember: Libertarians are for as little government as possible, particularly in the economic and regulatory realm. Maher supported Ralph Nader for president and has said he favors a government takeover of the electoral system. To call himself a libertarian is like a Vishnu worshipper calling himself Catholic.

But that's Maher's approach to everything: Getting hung up on what his guests deride as mere "labels" or "details" is just stupid in a world where the opinions of supermodels matter a great deal.

It should be no surprise that columnist Arianna Huffington has come to Maher's aid. Recall that in the last election cycle, the one-time Gingrich conservative rightly ridiculed the notion that Donald Trump was qualified to run for president but in the same breath she became the cheerleader for a Warren Beatty candidacy. By my calculations, that's a full 720-degree spin of hypocrisy.

Anyway, Huffington has written a letter, column, whatever (again, labels, shmabels) asking people to petition ABC not to "censor" Politically Incorrect. Huffington warns that the First Amendment might be the first victim of the terrorist assault if Politically Incorrect is dropped. Never mind that the First Amendment, which deals only with government censorship, has nothing to do with this (sigh, more labels).

The truth is that Politically Incorrect lasted longer than it deserved. And, in the wake of the Sept. 11 murders, Maher's style of cynical mocking, sophomoric sex-talk, and knee-jerk America-bashing was destined to die on the vine no matter what, because it's inappropriate, dated and boring just like the title of the show.

Does he really deserve to be canned because of this specific remark? Probably not, but why get caught up in the details?