I have been reading a bit about the Woody Allen furor caused I gather by his daughter Dylan's open letter describing abuse she claims to have suffered by her father.  I read her letter and one blog post regarding the matter but have not otherwise delved into the controversy.  It is my perception that a controversy exists that interests me.

Perhaps my memory is overly selective, but it seems to me that generally the reaction to claims of abuse and attempts at defense is to accept the claims and treat the defenses as a pack of lies ("of course he denies it; what abuser would admit the abuse?").  That does not seem to be the case with Mr. Allen and I cannot help but wonder if the difference in the wider reaction can be accounted for by Allen's status as a Hollywood icon and staunch advocate of leftist authoritarian views (he did note after all that the country would be better off if Obama could be a dictator for several years).

This would not be the first time a person with the proper opinions was shielded from the consequences of his actions (Bill Clinton and other Democrats with similar proclivities toward the opposite sex (John Edwards anyone?) come to mind as do the many individuals on the left famous or otherwise who utter vile despicable things about conservatives.  As Victor Davis Hanson has noted leftest views shield you from all sorts of nasty consequences for your actions.

But it seems to me that it has always been the case that when the organs of information are staffed with persons of a particular world view they tend to protect those of similar views.