Uncategorized
Documentary explores the ‘Talmudic’ relationship between writer Robert Caro and his famous longtime editor
(New York Jewish Week) — Bob Gottlieb, who as editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster, Alfred A. Knopf and The New Yorker ushered into print some of the 20th-century’s most accomplished writers — Nora Ephron, Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, John Cheever and Ray Bradbury, to name a few — believes editing is a service job, one that should go unnoticed by the reader.
And yet, it is the relationship between editor and writer that his daughter Lizzie Gottlieb, a documentary filmmaker, explores in her latest film, “Turn Every Page: The Adventures of Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb,” which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2022 and is now screening at theaters across the country.
Lizzie’s documentary sets out to explore the sometimes tense but ultimately caring relationship between her father, Bob, and one of his longest running authors, Robert Caro, who over the course of 50 years has produced “only” five major books: “The Power Broker,” a classic biography of urban planner Robert Moses, and four volumes of “The Years of Lyndon B. Johnson.”
Jews born and raised in Manhattan, Caro and Gottlieb have worked together since Gottlieb helped cut 350,000 words out of the first draft of “The Power Broker,” bringing it down to a book that ultimately ran 1,338 pages when it was published in 1974.
The thing they squabble over most often? Semicolons, still. Or, maybe, Caro’s overuse of the word “looms.”
The film, seven years in the making, takes on the ways Moses shaped New York City, the mysteries of LBJ’s political power, the sausage-making of bestselling books and the idiosyncrasies of two workaholics. It is also a story of two now elderly men — Caro is 87, Gottlieb is 91 — in what Bob Gottlieb calls an “actuarial” contest to finish Caro’s highly anticipated fifth volume of his Johnson biography.
“My dad and I are very close. We’re in constant contact with each other. If something funny happens, I call my dad. If something sad or confusing happens, I’ll call him. We’re just in each other’s lives all the time, so I didn’t feel that there was a secret I needed to uncover or something unexamined in our relationship,” said director Lizzie Gottlieb, who also teaches documentary filmmaking at the New York Film Academy.
“But the one thing I really knew nothing about in his life was his relationship with Bob Caro,” she said. “Because it was so different from anything else, and it was so kind of private. So really, the whole movie is the process of me understanding something that I didn’t understand before.”
The New York Jewish Week recently caught up with Gottlieb to talk about the making of the film, what it was like growing up in a high-profile family and how Jewishness impacts the work of the two men.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Lizzie Gottlieb is a documentary filmmaker who previously directed “Today’s Man” (2008) and “Romeo Romeo” (2012).
New York Jewish Week: You’ve been working on this movie for seven years. When did you realize you needed to make this movie and how did it get from start to finish?
For a long time, people would say to me, “You should make a film about your father.” I have an incredible father. He’s done a lot of great things. He’s interesting and funny. But I just thought, a film whose message is “look how great my dad is” is not a movie that anybody wants to see.
And then my father was given some award and Bob Caro was presenting the award. Bob Caro gave a speech about working with my dad over what was then 45 years. He talked about how he needs him, and he respects him and how they’re so productive. Then he started talking about their arguments. Somebody in the audience asked what they fought about and he said, “We have very different feelings about the semicolon.” Everybody erupted into laughs and it just hit me like a bolt of lightning. I thought, “This is the movie, this is the story.”
I wanted a story that had forward momentum and had something big at stake. A film about two men in their 60s who had done a lot of great stuff is not that interesting. But a film about two men who are hovering around 90 and are still in it, and engaged in their work, who have a dedication and passion and are in a race against time to finish their life’s work, felt really, really compelling to me.
People say, “Are you sure you should be wasting [Caro’s] time with a movie? He needs to be writing.” My producer Jen Small said we should put on the poster, “No Lyndon Johnson books were harmed in the making of this film.”
Do you think you had a perspective that made you the best person to try and talk about their relationship and document it, or was it challenging to make the leap of them being willing to open up to you?
There was definitely a pursuit of them. I called my father and I was like, “I have the best idea ever. I’m going to make a film about you and Robert Caro.” He said, “No way. Absolutely not. Never. It would not be good for our relationship.”
I just kept pestering and pestering and pestering him. Finally, he said I could call Bob Caro but he would say no and of course Bob Caro did initially say no. Then he said that he’d seen another film of mine and I could come and speak to him. Eventually, Caro said, “I’ve never seen a film about a writer and an editor, and I think this could be meaningful. I don’t think anyone’s ever seen this before.” So he let me start, but he had this kind of hilarious condition, which was that he didn’t want to ever appear in the same room as my father. That seemed funny and a little maddening and sort of endearing. It also seemed like an irresistible challenge to try to make a buddy film where they don’t appear in the same room as each other. A woman came to a screening recently and she said, “It’s a love story, and they don’t get together until the last scene.”
They both say that somehow the making of this movie has brought them closer together and that they have developed a real friendship after 50 years. Maybe just having to articulate what their relationship has meant to each other has made them appreciate it more.
What was it like to grow up in your household, with your father as this major editor and your mother (actress Maria Tucci) on Broadway?
I grew up in a really incredible household. My mother’s an actress, my father’s a publisher and editor. Our house was this kind of vibrant, boisterous household that was always filled with eccentric, incredible people — actors and writers. My dad’s writers would come for dinner and then my mother would go off and do a play on Broadway and then come back at midnight and make another dinner. It was incredible. So I feel that both of their work was kind of integrated into our life and into our family. All of his writers were really like family members, except for Bob Caro, who never came over and who I never met. I think that there’s something particular and peculiar about their relationship that they needed to stay apart and only come together over work. I guess that was something that intrigued me and that’s part of why I wanted to make the movie.
“Turn Every Page: The Adventures of Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb” (Courtesy Tribeca Film Festival)
The Jewishness in the film is a bit more implicit, though you discuss it when talking about their upbringings. How do you think their Jewish identities have impacted their work?
I don’t want to presume to speak for either of them about their Jewishness. I know they both very strongly identify as New York Jews, which probably means something slightly different to each of them, but I think it’s essential to their definitions of themselves. Their humor may be particularly Jewish as well. David Remnick uses a word at the end of the movie, where he says Caro needs to have “sitzfleisch” in order to finish the book. It’s this Yiddish [and German] word that means the ability to sit for long, long periods of time and apply yourself to something. I think that that is something that these two guys have: It’s almost a Talmudic focus on their craft, and without that they wouldn’t be who they are. So to the extent that that’s a Jewish quality, I think that’s essential to their being, to their achievements. There’s something like a Talmudic scholar in going over all these things, the industriousness and the empathy as well, this sort of looking at a thing from all sides and dedicating yourself to this pursuit.
Bonus question: You briefly show the various eccentric collections your dad has, including plastic handbags and kitschy Israeli record albums from the ’60s and ’70s. What is that about?
Yes, he has a lot of collections. He also has a collection of macramé owls. There are many that are not in the movie. Maybe that’s a Talmudic thing as well, like a deep dive into whatever it is that is interesting to him. He says that every subject gets more interesting the deeper you get into it. When something strikes him as charming or funny or curious, he goes all the way with it. My mother doesn’t love them. There’s a little bit of a power struggle there, but he wins. You grow up with something and you don’t really think about it. But I knew I had to find a way to put this in the movie. People kept saying it’s irrelevant, it’s to the side, but I knew I had to because it’s so weird and says so much about him.
—
The post Documentary explores the ‘Talmudic’ relationship between writer Robert Caro and his famous longtime editor appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jon Stewart, Here Is Your Chance to Be a Mensch
Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” on April 8, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
There is no doubt that Jon Stewart has great comedic ability and the gift of gab. In a sneak attack many years ago, he had a mic drop moment where he destroyed Tucker Carlson’s show CrossFire, telling him to stop hurting America. At that time, all Carlson did was have an aggressive political debate show — he wasn’t spewing Jew-hatred and conspiracy theories.
Stewart, who must know something about antisemitism because he felt a need to change his name from Leibowitz to Stewart, raised The Daily Show to great heights and came out of retirement ostensibly to try to make sure that President Trump is lampooned.
I know Jon Stewart is a person who cares about justice, because he fought very hard for the rights of 9/11 firefighters. The passion Stewart showed and his ability to speak truth to power was unrivaled. Some even thought he even had the potential to be a president one day. If Ukraine can have a president that was a comedian, why not America?
Of course, Stewart would be good if his focus was justice. It isn’t always. Sometimes, it’s only about haranguing Trump, no matter what. How about a few shows against antisemitism. He took on Tucker Carlson once. Why not do it again? While Tucker’s no longer wearing a bowtie, he’s saying he was attacked by a demon and Candace Owens is making claims about time machines. What about a one-hour Netflix or Apple TV+ show lambasting them both. It would be monumental.
But Stewart is hoping that Carlson and Owens continue to wreak havoc, and benefit the Democratic Party. And with only a few more years of Trump, those who want to vilify him want to get their last shots in and may not want to divert to something else. I believe that Stewart is against antisemitism. But he should call it out on all sides, and not mock Israel, a country that faced genocidal terrorists who would kill every Jew if they had the weapons to do so.
Jon Stewart is 63 and mentally sharp. He is capable of much better jokes than about physical appearance, which he recently used to attack Sid Rosenberg. Stewart would be better off criticizing Rosenberg’s positions, or perhaps that’s a bit more difficult these days.
If Stewart really wants to advance justice, he could start by attacking antisemites and racists, on both the right and left. He has the rare talent to do it in an impressive way.
Jon Stewart was the greatest mensch when he fought for firefighters. This is his time to do it again.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
Fatah Glorified Munich Olympics Massacre Ahead of 2026 Winter Olympics
An image of one of the Palestinian terrorists who took part in the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
While the world was preparing to celebrate the Olympic Games in Italy, Fatah celebrated Olympic blood in Munich.
Just two weeks before the opening of this year’s Winter Olympics, Fatah — the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s ruling party — chose to revive and celebrate the most infamous act of Olympic terrorism in history: the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered.
On its Facebook page, Fatah’s Commission of Information and Culture posted a segment from its Awdah TV channel, glorifying the massacre as “a surprise Israel had not experienced before” and recounting how terrorists, whom she called “self-sacrificing fighters,” infiltrated the Olympic Village, seized Israeli hostages, and issued demands.
Responsibility for the murders was subtly shifted away from the terrorists, while the operation was presented as daring and historic:
Fatah-run Awdah TV host:“In September 1972, Israel was about to receive a surprise it had not experienced before. Eight self-sacrificing fighters [i.e., terrorists] invaded the quarters of the Israeli sports delegation that was participating in the Olympic Games in the German city of Munich. They captured nine Israelis and demanded to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners [i.e., terrorists] who were in the Israeli prisons in exchange for the release of the hostages. Israel refused to negotiate, and the hostages were killed.”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Jan. 22, 2026]
On the same day, Fatah’s Commission of Information and Culture also lionized the architect of the Munich massacre, Ali Hassan Salameh, as “The Red Prince.”
Fatah described him as a brilliant “security mind” and strategic genius whose operations allegedly “embarrassed Israel:”
Text on screen: “The Red Prince, the commander whom the Mossad pursued for years. Ali Hassan Salameh was not a shadowy figure, but rather a security mind who created a secret battle …
He joined Fatah in the mid-1960s and was among its first security personnel. He quickly stood out for his organizational wisdom and ability, and sensitive missions were entrusted to him … He led the security activity of the revolution outside Palestine and built a complex defense network that embarrassed Israel. He became a central target of the Mossad, and his name topped the assassination lists.
[Then Israeli Prime Minister] Golda Meir gave the order to eliminate him, and the pursuit after him crossed continents … On Jan. 22, 1979, the Mossad assassinated him in Beirut using a car bomb. His assassination did not put an end to his presence, rather it established his status as one of the most dangerous minds of the revolution. Ali Hassan Salameh, a security commander and one of the symbols of the hidden strugglewith the occupation.” [emphasis added]
Posted text:“The Red Prince Ali Hassan Salameh, the commander whom the Mossad pursued for years”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Jan. 22, 2026]
Even more than 54 years later, the PA’s ruling party still treats the Munich Olympics massacre as a legacy to be celebrated.
By deliberately highlighting this massacre just before the Milano Winter Olympics, Fatah yet again shows how it is proud to promote terrorists and terrorism.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
How NPR Whitewashes the Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay-for-Slay’ Program
Stuart and Robbi Force (left), parents of Taylor Force, with Reps. Doug Lamborn and Lee Zeldin. Taylor Force was killed by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Israel. Photo: Algemeiner.
Even for NPR, the latest segment on its popular “All Things Considered” program crossed the line.
Headlined “Palestinian Authority tries to reform, but one measure is sparking a backlash,” the segment focused on the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s controversial “pay-for-slay” program, where imprisoned Palestinian terrorists and their families, or the families of Palestinians who were killed while committing acts of terrorism or trying to harm Israeli security forces, receive financial stipends.
However, instead of taking a critical look at “pay-for-slay,” NPR provided cover for the insidious PA program.
To begin, NPR immediately whitewashed the program in the subheading, referring to it merely as “payments to families whose relatives are killed or jailed by Israel.”
There was zero mention of the fact that this program incentivizes violence and terrorism by paying out more to families of terrorists than the PA’s regular social welfare pay-outs. In addition, there was no mention that these payments are based on the length of prison sentences rather than actual financial need.
And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
No, @NPR, this isn’t the reason the PA program is “controversial.”
The recipients of the cash are families of TERRORISTS – not Palestinians who committed minor crimes or were innocently caught in the crossfire, but bona fide terrorists whom you appear to be whitewashing. pic.twitter.com/WH0q1AkOBj
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 10, 2026
Throughout the story, NPR’s Emily Feng downplayed the vile nature of “pay-for-slay.”
“Pay-for-slay” wasn’t presented as a dangerous incentive for the murder of innocent Israelis, which was the target of American legislation (The Taylor Force Act).
Instead, the program was merely characterized as “controversial.” But using public funds to incentivize terrorism is something much more grave and consequential.
Along with this false characterization, NPR also portrayed the truth about the program as Israeli criticisms that “the PA pushes back against.”
It would be hard to find a more watered-down depiction of “pay-for-slay.”
Further on in the segment, Feng interviewed a Palestinian woman named Inaan who was receiving a monthly payment of 1,400 shekels ($440) since her son had been killed by the IDF.
This doesn’t seem like a lot of money. However, Feng failed to inform her audience that this is only the payment for family members of those killed by Israeli security forces (after a one-time payment of 6,000 shekels).
Terrorists in Israeli prisons can receive up to 12,000 shekels (roughly $3,900) per month.
This presentation of the monthly payments being inconsequential and of limited value is further emphasized by Feng’s next interviewee, Qadura Fares, who is quoted as saying, “The money — it’s mean [sic] nothing for those have believed [sic] that this occupation should be ended and to fight the occupation.”
Fares is the former head of the PA’s prisoners’ affairs commission. In passing, NPR also informed its audience that Fares served time in Israeli prison for “trying to kill Israeli soldiers.”
That’s right, NPR platformed a convicted terrorist.
Perhaps the words of someone who used to target Israelis should be taken with a grain of salt when discussing payments for imprisoned terrorists.
Fares resigned from his position after PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced an end to the “pay-for-slay” policy, stating that the only recipients would now be those who require economic assistance. Many groups, including Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), have provided documentation that the PA is still continuing “pay-for-slay” — though the PA is trying to hide the payments.
Along with Fares, Feng interviewed a couple of other Palestinians who were upset with this alleged reform and complained that the new system is not working properly.
What Feng failed to inform her audience is that this “reform” is alleged by analysts like PMW to be a ruse, with Abbas promising a Palestinian audience that imprisoned terrorists and the families of “martyrs” would continue to receive funds, and that the “reform” is more of a restructuring than an outright end to “pay-for-slay.”
Nearly a year after this “reform” was announced, many beneficiaries were still reportedly receiving their payments.
Perhaps the cherry on top is when Feng referred to the alleged reform as “trying to please outside powers.” As if the program didn’t require serious reform, but rather that the PA capitulated to foreign interference.
A whitewash indeed.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.