The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)'s article about Mel Gibson speaks a lot about how Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade might cause him trouble "in a Hollywood dominated by powerful Jews." This seems to me quite fair; I'm not positive what share of the power in Hollywood is wielded by Jews, but plenty of the top players are indeed Jewish (surely at quite a disproportionate level to the 2% of the U.S. working population that's Jewish), and I would think that they are indeed reluctant to do business with people who say anti-Semitic things. But isn't it a bit odd just how the issue is framed not just as powerful Jews vs. people who engage in drunken anti-Semitic tirades, but as powerful Jews vs. man of iron-clas convictions? Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks could have repercussions in a Hollywood dominated by powerful Jews.

Passionate and provocative, Mel Gibson has always courted controversy, thanks largely to his iron-clad convictions.

In Hollywood alone, where his voice has remained relatively uncensored, the movie star-turned producer regularly chomped on the gigantic hand that fed him....

Making anti-Semitic remarks in a movie land controlled by powerful Jews is not the most discerning thing for an actor to do.

Then again, it is nothing abnormal for Gibson, who regularly faces the ire of Jews for his statements and stances....

And one cannot forget arguably the greatest director the industry has produced, Steven Spielberg. Another famed Jew.

And it appears Gibson is not afraid of upsetting any of them.... Gibson's saving grace may be his newfound individuality. ...

[T]hanks to the success of [Passion of the Christ], he may never need to feed from Hollywood's hand again.

That passionate and provocative man of iron-clad convictions, whose voice has remained relatively uncensored: He faces the ire of Jews for his statements and stances, but he isn't afraid of upsetting any of them, especially since now he doesn't need to feed from Hollywood's hand. Doesn't that seem like an odd tone for an article that comes not in the wake of some principled disagreement about artistic matters, or even in the wake of the controversy about Passion of the Christ, but in the wake of a drunken rant about "fucking Jews"?

In any case, please read the whole thing — perhaps I've unduly focused on the excerpts I give, and you'll come to a different conclusion when you read the item.

Thanks to my colleague Mark Greenberg for pointing me to this article.