Hope Springs Eternal

A few folks on the Internet (like Daniel Frank) are out there defending Bob Hope's name. And even Slate, which ran Christopher Hitchens' piece on the man, has offered up another viewpoint, which is something they don't often do. This all strikes me as the meaningless end of the discussion. So what if some people didn't find Bob Hope funny? Some people don't find Richard Pryor funny. Or Monty Python. Or even this website. One of the things the Internet has brought into clear focus for us is that many human beings on this planet have a problem with differing tastes. If you say you don't like their favorite movie or TV show or book, they feel the urge to argue with you as if you have made a clear factual error and can be debated into seeing things their way. Recently, I had occasion to say to an acquaintance, "Why do you feel so threatened because I don't like Star Trek? My not liking it is not going to take it away from you. Can't you enjoy it despite the fact that I don't?" But the guy continued hectoring me to watch more episodes so that I might become enlightened and see the error of my ways. Opinions are fragile things that often crumble when they are held too firmly.

As I mentioned, Bill Maher's comments on Larry King Live the other day struck me as a more interesting bit of posthumous Hope-bashing, because they raise an issue of some substance. That is to what extent the media protects certain individuals while dishing up all possible dirt on others. The exchange was also interesting because Larry King obviously didn't know how to respond. He didn't want to argue with what Maher was saying about Hope's personal life because he knew (a) it was probably correct and (b) if he started arguing, Bill would just go on and on about it, perhaps naming names and telling stories. But Mr. King also didn't want it said that he endorsed or agreed with what his guest was saying. So he said nothing…

MAHER: …I'm always curious — you know, I don't want to tap dance on someone's grave, but I'm always curious why the press protects certain stars and not others. I mean, Bob Hope, you know, is known…

KING: Well, when he — when he spoke out about — in Vietnam, there — people were complaining about him.

MAHER: No, I'm talking about his reputation as a great family man.

KING: Oh.

MAHER: You know? I mean, he was one of the great dogs of all time who never spent a day with his wife. You know, I think there's a story about one of his kids saw him one time and said, Hey, that's Bob Hope. You know, when your kids are asking for your autograph…

KING: You think the press does cover for…

MAHER: For some and not others. I don't understand.

KING: All right, let's move on to Iraq.

Notice: Not a word out of Larry King on a topic that he knew was radio-active. I suspect we will see much the same discussion somewhere when Ronald Reagan dies but in that case, Republicans will take up arms and scream about "revisionism." The image of Reagan as a man of character and integrity has been too valuable to some as a political tool and as a security blanket. (You just know that somewhere at Republican HQ, there's a whole media campaign planned out for if Reagan passes away before the '04 election: "Honor the Gipper's memory by voting for Bush.")