ACORN v. Polanski
At NRO's Corner, Jonah Goldberg quotes an email from a reader on the MSM's surprisingly elastic resources:
Isn't it interesting that the MSM claimed a week ago that it was too distracted by two wars, health care debate, the economy etc to dedicate resources to cover the Acorn mess, yet they seem to have plenty of time and personnel to give a boatload of coverage to a 60 plus year old pedophile fugitive who hasn't been in the news for two decades. Yep, that's more critical to our societal fabric right now....
Oddly enough, it is, but not reasons that the average L.A. Timesman might think: like little else recently, it's exposed the planetary-sized gap between "Big Hollywood" (to coin a phrase) and the rest of America. As the Professor writes, linking to a must-read response from Ann Althouse to French philosopher and libertine Bernard-Henri Lévy, "because the real argument is that as one of the creative elite, Polanski is supposed to enjoy a sort of droit de seigneur — but if you come right out and say that, the peasants will get angry."
They certainly have -- and rightly so.
Update: At Maggie's Farm, Bruce Kesler writes:
Just listening to the radio on the way home I heard Hugh Hewitt suggest what he called the "game-set-match" question to Hollywoodites supporting Roman Polanski not being tried: "Should someone drugging and raping your 13-year old daughter be prosecuted?" (I'd add sister or mother, as all in Hollywood must have at least one of the above.)
The shortest Hollywood film ever would be a unanimous "yes" from all. However, it may be too much to assume that none would answer "no." It is Hollyweird, after all.