Gibson and radio producer mocked Jon Stewart's "sobbing" remarks after 9-11, called him a "phony"
On his
radio show, John Gibson and his executive producer mocked Jon Stewart for emotional remarks he made shortly after 9-11. While airing a clip of
Stewart's remarks, Gibson mimicked Stewart and sarcastically interjected,
"Oh, God, Jon.
Just tell me it's not true," and, "Oh! That's
great. I'm --
God, I'm touched."
On the August 10 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, John Gibson and the program's executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," mocked Comedy Central host Jon Stewart for emotional remarks he made shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. While airing a clip of Stewart's remarks from the September 20, 2001, edition of The Daily Show, Gibson mimicked Stewart and sarcastically interjected, "Oh, God, Jon. Just tell me it's not true," and, "Oh! That's great. I'm -- God, I'm touched." Before playing the clip, Angry Rich asked, "Do you remember what the media was like shortly after 9-11?" Gibson answered, "Oh, Jon Stewart sobbing." After the clip concluded, Angry Rich called Stewart a "phony."
The portion of Stewart's September 20, 2001, comments that Gibson aired:
STEWART: The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center. And now it's gone. And they attacked it. This symbol of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty. You can't beat that.
Gibson mocked Stewart during a discussion of Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky's August 9 column, headlined "To save America, we need another 9/11." He aired the clip immediately following a caller's comment that "the last time I ever remember in my entire life this entire country actually stood up and held hands and everybody cared about each other" was after 9-11.
From the August 10 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
GIBSON: [Caller] in Madison, Wisconsin.
CALLER: Hi, John.
GIBSON: Are you angry at this columnist for saying -- well, let me quote him correctly -- "that another 9-11 would help America?"
CALLER: You know, John, I have -- I love your show. First, I want to say you're one of my great idols. I listen to you everyday.
GIBSON: You do?
CALLER: Yes. I absolutely love your show. John, I -- you know, I've said this for so long right now because I'm so frustrated with these -- with everybody, just -- all everybody cares about in this country is their own personal interests, and that's all they really want the government to go for. And everybody is -- they want the money and the time and energy spent on their own personal interests, and everybody's always thinking about me, me, me, me, me.
And the last time I ever remember in my entire life this entire country actually stood up and held hands and everybody cared about each other and said, "You know what? Forget my interests. I don't care what, you know, I have to do to help myself now. Go, government, and take care of this country as a whole," was September 12. You know, September 11. And ever since then, we've gotten so far away and after that, and we've forgotten that feeling of that day after. And it has -- you know, it's dwindled away from everybody, and we have gotten to the point we're back into only caring about putting that money and effort into what is going to help me personally and what's going to, you know --
GIBSON: [Caller], you live in Madison, Wisconsin?
CALLER: One of the most liberal towns in this country.
GIBSON: How -- I mean, do you, like, hide under a rock --
CALLER: My God.
GIBSON: -- and make sure your neighbors don't hear you speak?
CALLER: And trust me, honest to God, I'm in the closet right now.
ANGRY RICH: They throw bongs at him.
GIBSON: I bet they do. [Caller], thanks.
CALLER: I mean I'm --
GIBSON: Appreciate it. God, we found the one guy in Madison who's sensible.
ANGRY RICH: Do you remember what the media was like shortly after 9-11?
GIBSON: Oh, Jon Stewart sobbing.
STEWART: The view from my apartment --
GIBSON: Sobbing.
STEWART: -- was the World Trade Center.
GIBSON: Oh, God, Jon. Just tell me it's not true.
STEWART: And now it's gone.
GIBSON: It's gone.
STEWART: And they attacked it.
GIBSON: They attacked it.
STEWART: This symbol --
GIBSON: This symbol.
STEWART: -- of American ingenuity --
GIBSON: American ingenuity.
STEWART: -- and strength --
GIBSON: And strength.
STEWART: -- and --
GIBSON: Determination.
STEWART: -- and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is gone.
GIBSON: Gone.
STEWART: But you know what the view is now?
ANGRY RICH: What is it, Jon?
GIBSON: What is it, Jon?
STEWART: The Statue of Liberty.
GIBSON: Oh! That's great. I'm -- God, I'm touched.
STEWART: The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty.
GIBSON: I'm touched.
ANGRY RICH: Let me bash Bush for the next six years.
STEWART: You can't beat that.
GIBSON: You can't beat that. Well --
ANGRY RICH: Phony.
GIBSON: Actually, you could. If you wait a little while, you'll say, just as Steve Martin used to say, "Should I fight the terrorists? Should I listen to their phone calls? Should I follow them everywhere on the planet to keep America safe? Nah, let's kick the hell out of Bush."
Do we need another 9-11? Triple eight, seven, eight, eight, nine, nine, one, zero. Any of you -- anybody who would say we do need a 9-11, remember, there are bloggers on the left and bloggers on the right who would like to string you up.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
See, the sad thing is that Stewart's show is more of a news program than Gibson could ever hope to put out. The fact that The Daily Show is supposed to be satire, and it is, and it is supposed to be funny (and it is that also) and yet, more people who watch the Daily Show are better informed as to what is going on in the country than watchers of CNN and Foxnews (I saw a statistical breakdown somewhere, maybe Wired magazine).
And bash Bush for the next 6 years? Yeah, of course, once again Gibson, it's called satire, and Bush is the President, and he's the main target, so he gets made fun of (I mean the jokes just write themselves for that guy anyway), and let's not forget that Stewart also likes to make fun of democrats. I'm not saying it's a 50-50 split, but you can be darn sure that when a democrat wins the White House in 2008, he'll be poking as much fun at them, as he's been doing at Bush for the past 6 years.
Gibson, get a clue, or maybe watch the Daily Show, and see how "real" news is actually done. What a joke Gibson is.
You've identified an interesting phenomenon. Jon Stewart, as you point out, is actually more informative than a lot of the Pundit shows like Gibson's. I think he is also more accurate and more honest than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or any of the usual liars.
This Gibson episode is just another symptom of how Rush Limbaugh has contaminated the public discourse. If you're old enough, think back...can you imagine Walter Cronkite or even Dan Rather going after Chevy Chase or George Carlin like this? I think they had too much professional integrity.
Nerzog,
While I don't disagree with what you've said, Cronkite and Rather inhabited completely different times than today. Also, they were reporters, not commentators like Gibson.
But you're right, there was far more public civility on our airwaves back then, mostly because we got our news from the evening newscasts and little else. Opinion shows and talk radio were nearly nonexistant then, and only languished on the ends of the dial where nobody ventured.
It's now "stick it to your political opponent no holds barred inflammatory screeching", and it is tiring.
Well, you have a point. I can't really think of anyone comparable to Gibson, Limbaugh, etc. back in those days. I do remember that Chevy Chase was fairly unkind to President Ford, and I don't remember Ford or any other politicians attacking him. Maybe the real difference is that we now have a prolific punditocracy which didn't exist in those days, and they feel obligated to justify their existence.
You hit the nail on the head. These pundits need to say whatever it takes to maintain some relevancy, or attention. Being milquetoast doesn't cut it when it comes to much of conservative talk radio. That's sad.
Well, there was Father Charles Coughlin, who spewed anti-semitic, pro-fascist venom from pre-WWII radio. He was one person, who was quickly discredited, stripped of his priestly duties by the Catholic Church and forced to spew from remote radio locations in Canada. Caused (or contributed to anyway) a race riot in Detroit, though.
Compare that to the fate of today's Radio Liars. Now we make them multi-millionaires.
Ick. So true.
Also Cronkite would never have been jealous of Chevy Chase or George Carlin in the way Gibson is CLEARLY jealous of Stewart. Stewart has won two Emmys and has professional respect. Two things that will forever allude Mr Gibson.
Well, that's true. What's a fascist dweeb like Gibson to do? In the 1930s, vicious twerps like him found fulfillment running death camps. He has to settle for being a GOP Propaganda Parrot.
Yes, I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect.
Anyone who thinks there was not just a tad bit of showbiz behind Stewart's sob job that night needs to call a plumber immediately--your toilet is currently being clogged by your head!
Why? Because he's a New Yorker, and has lived there for many years on end and was sad about the loss of life and the destruction that took place? Oh yeah, I'm sure he faked that. I guess the 2 friends of mine who also live in NY were faking their grief as well when I spoke with them that day, as well as everyone else not just in NY, but in DC, and around the entire country who were sobbing, and crying and feeling bad that day. Get a grip man, 9/11 affected a good many people that day, in ways that are known only to those individuals. I'm sure you felt no grief at all?
I remember the pictures and footage of all the "actors" on the sidewalks of New York, each perfecting their "sob jobs" as they looked up in horror at what they were witnessing.
Put any of these people in front of a camera and an audience 9 days after it happens so they can reflect on what they saw first hand. Let's see how many words they can muster. How many of them could maintain their composure for nearly 10 minutes like Jon did?
You mean in the well-rehearsed way that Stewart did after reading the lines that his script writers wrote for him as they rolled down the teleprompter? I bet a bunch of them could.
(See my original reply below)
Sometimes pointing out the obvious isn't interesting or observant...but it is necessary.
Oh, now this is out of NECESSITY?
I guess I can see that.
What is there left to do when your political agenda has blown up in your face, the military is quagmired, nothing has gotten done domestically, and control of Congress is gone?
Smear and mock a comedian's 6-year old on-air reflection of a horrific terrorist attack, that's what!
Since we're revisiting the past, allow me to dredge up another clip, this one even older, but FAR MORE worthy of revisiting.
Oooooo Pete, thank you that's vintage. I like it! I have something for you as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Slightly older, but just as tasty.
Very good! Both men apparently flip-flopped. Cheney's change of heart has cost us 300 billion dollars, 3600 dead Americans, and close to a million dead Iraqis. What was the cost of Gore's flip flop?
Here's a clip that's even more fun:
[link to www.youtube.com]
No. You are reading minds which is the most worthless form of argument.
I am reading minds? It seems that YOU are the one averse to responding to an argument. Which part of my argument do you disagree with? Do you contend that a. Stewart doesn't rehearse his own show, which would make him lazy, b. that he doesn't use script writers or teleprompters, a contention that defies all sorts of common sense, or c. both?
It doesnt matter whether or not it is rehearsed. Talking about some things can STILL dredge up those original emotions.
You call that an argument? You made several apparently baseless claims like "well-rehearsed" and "[a script] his script writers wrote for him" on a "teleprompter". Not that such claims are even relevant to any real argument.
I have delivered lay sermons in church that I have rehearsed several times beforehand. It doesn't mean that it wasn't entirely sincerely delivered. You seem to mistake impromptu with sincere. Some of us like to write down what we think and go over it beforehand or know and trust others who are more elequent, who can capture our thoughts better than we can. It doesn't mean the least bit that the emotion on display was anything, other than genuine.
Your supposed argument was cheap and disgusting on its face and did not deserve a proper rebuttal. Simple human decency dictates that Stewart get the benefit of the doubt for words said at such a time of understandibly hightened emotions. I see you could not even afford him that.
Comdeians often swerve from the script. They intentionally leave room for imrpovisation and have the social skill of being able to utilize it in conversation. It's called spontaneity. It's a trait much sought after in human-kind.
I rehearsed my father's eulogy. Does that mean I was insincere? I pulled it off without crying. Does that mean that I had no feeling for my father? Don't be stupid.
What is obvious, at least to those of us with a functioning heart, is that it doesnt matter that he knew what the story was about, it doesnt matter that he knew what the words were. It was still something that effected HIM. He was there its his city and there is no way in the WORLD you can know he was being insincere. That is just what you WANT to believe. I have heard songs a hundred times that still bring tears to my eyes. Stories I have told before when I retell them STILL bring back the original feelings, if you dont know what those are ask someone with a heart, and they still break my heart. It is a weak tactic to assign venal motives for something, a weak and desperate tactic.
Here's something obvious ahole, you're a pile of crap, like the execrable gibson, just not on such a large scale. (And flag me as abusive, I don't care ahole.) If Stewart was scripted, as he was so apparently was not, flaming ahole, then what about this so-called administration and its putrid fellators like gibson and his ilk have done in the name of 9/11, fearmongering shamelessly to keep its hold on power and thoroughly dishonoring the people who died on 911, (in which BTW the jury is still out that these maggots were not complicit.) What is your take on that ahole, does it bother you in the slightest that they have used 911 to further their ends? No, only Jon Stewart's alleged emoting affects you. You're a sociopath, just like Bush and Cheney.
I was talking about interestingahole in the above post, I hope that was obvious.
I saw the original airing of that Daily Show episode and I thought he was geniune. I think the only reason Gibson mentioned this almost 6 years after the fact is because it gave him an opportunity to talk about "9/11"(The White House must be paying Fox to mention it every ten minutes)
I thought it was suspicious that they happened to have that bit of audio from Jon Stewart readily available for immediate replay.
The reason we are not united still is a direct result of Bush's botched plan. Invading Iraq cost us unity. His inept running of the war cost us unity.
The blame lies squarely on his shoulders, and Gibson is trying to transfer some of that blame to people like Stewart by calling him a phony. If Stewart is a phony, that helps demonize the left. Whatever pulls down the opposition makes the right look less like hypocrites and failures in comparison.
I'm willing to bet you've heard this before, but your insight is neither interesting or observant.
my eyes got a little misty that day. watching people cling to the sides of the wtc and watching people make the choice to jump was intensely emotional. that did not go away in a day or two and still has not completely.
IO, are you equally skeptical about Dennis Miller's gushing jingoism after 9/11?
Yes I am.
OK, go on...
Let's have the name calling, the mockery, the accusations of disingenuousness.
Or are you not that fair and balanced?
The subject of the post is Stewart and Gibson, not Miller. I prefer not to have my comments flagged and deleted, as will surely happen if I make the dominant theme of my post Dennis Miller, as he is mentioned exactly NOWHERE in this article. Thank you.
One of the lamest excuses for a cop out I've ever seen.
You mean they won't delete your posts just because you're being a dick?
You got that right. What an opportunistic slime he turned into.
Opportunistic? What part of supporting a war and an administration that a tiny fraction of the American public supports constitutes being opportunistic??
He sold himself out to join the jingoistic rightwing media.
Are you not tapping the skepticism you spoke of?
When Miller had his "revelation", Bush had a pretty high approval rating, as I remember, and the majority still believed all the pre-war lies.
InterestingObserver,
I don't see why Stewart's remarks on that day would be any different than anyone else's. It was a time of deep sincerity and reflection about what this country means to each of us.
I suppose it speaks volumes about you that you apparently think such words are the slightest bit insincere. It looks like you are simply projecting your cold dead heart onto Stewart.
An easy way to see who is the most informed-Gibson should be a guest on the Daily Show. Talk about an interesting match up.
GIBSON: Oh! That's great. I'm -- God, I'm touched.
Exactly - you'd have to think you were God to sit in judgment of a man's true feelings. God - I think you got that backwards, the real Phony John.
I could think of many things to call Jon Stewart, but "phony" would not be one of them.
Anyone who has actually watched his show, or interviews with him, probably agrees that "phony" would be the last thing he could be described as. There are few people I have seen who have more integrity and ask honest questions to their guests without sucking up. Certainly, nobody on Fox News does it.
Can you imagine President Bush go on the "Daily Show" instead of Neil Cavuto's "Your World"? Tell me who the phony is.
Well said. I think the so-called "journalists" could take a few lessons from Stewart on how to interview a politician. Although his interviews are usually light-hearted, he's proven that he knows how to nail them to the wall if he wants to.
Just when you think one of this Faux New A-holes can't get any worse, they get worse. Gibson is absolutely shameless.
Crying comedians and dead clowns are never funny. Jon Stewart's news is exactly that to some people. Gibson's radio program is entertainment to many and news to no one....except to those who have never listened.
Let's do a fact-check audit on Jon Stewart vs. Gibson, Limbaugh and Hannity and see who wins. I'll put my money on Stewart.
Go ahead, I would love to see the data gleened from "fact checking" jokes.
Being that the jokes on TDS aren't delivered without a factual basis (i.e. current events) I would predict Jon Stewart winning in a landslide.
Dead clowns aren't funny?
Chuckle's The Clown was never as funny as he was when he died.
Yep yep That's a classic.
Chuckles must have been a Democrat........who else would show up at an elephant parade dressed as a peanut?
How bout crying tigers eating sad eyed clowns?
So Let me get this straight, now Jon Stewart is an untouchable? He is a on a pedestal?
by what evidence should he be called a phony?
By the same token what evidence is there that Bill O'Reilly is the "Worst Person in the World"? There are people out in our world who kill, molest and steal. I see no difference between Gibson calling someone a phony and someone else labeling someone "Worst Person in the World".
Hyperbole is exaggeration of reality for effect. Olbermann doesn't really think that the people he names worst person are literally the worst people in the world. Jon Stewart wasn't a phony that day.
Phony is the latest smear. As such when someone on the right says that someone on the left is a phony, I know that there's a propaganda message that needs to be put out there to mask the true issue.
J I agree with you names also hurt and give the wrong impression. Either calling someone the Worst Person in the World or a phony is wrong, its wrong and it should not be accepted. But as long as outlets like FOX and MSNBC allow this to occur, it will continue.
Whatever you big phony-pants:
Tommy, you make a good point about Edwards. The man is so wealthy, yet he is the "Authority" on poverty. To me he is the authority on "phony ex laywers".
- CaseySpring / Thursday August 9, 2007 06:41:38 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
I'm sorry, but snap.
I did not realize I work for FOX or MSNBC? It is not wrong for me since I do have an opinion and do not work for a msm type.
Your disingenuousness has nothing to do with for whom you do or do not work.
Own your words, own your position. Or just behave like a child with your hand caught in the cookie jar.
I could really care less.
I agree with you names also hurt and give the wrong impression. Either calling someone the Worst Person in the World or a phony is wrong, its wrong and it should not be accepted.
It's not wrong for you, but it's wrong for them? How do you figure that?
What is undeniably true is that we call those in the MSM to task for their behavior, and posters here don't typically call other posters to task for those same obnoxious behaviors, but....
When you're the pot and you're calling the kettle black, it's perfectly okay for someone to call you to task for it. We aren't obligated to do so in the same way we feel obliged to note these obnoxious behaviors when people in the MSM exhibit that, but it doesn't give you a free pass either! Wrong behavior is wrong from whatever source.
the "difference", jlyons, would be that there is no proof that stewart is a phony. lots of people were very affected by 9-11. calling someone a phony should include some specific evidence of a double standard on their part. apparently you cannot see the "difference".
Mefirst, I agree there is no proof Stewart is a phony. There is also no proof that O'Reilly is the Worst Person in the World.
Your analogy is all messed up. The whole Worst Person thing is a dig at the overreaction of rightwing punditry--do you think O'Reilly's "Most Ridiculous item of the Day" is really the most ridiculous item of the day? Of course it isn't. Olbermann goes over the top to satirize that whole schtick.
Whereas Gibson's "phony" remark seems to be exactly how he feels about Stewart, and certainly not a satircial comment on anything. Gibson thinks that Stewart can't have honest emotions because he is on the other side of the political spectrum. How ridiculous is that?
Do you take Colbert at face value too?
Colbert is comedy. He was on OReilly and stole his microwave.
You avoided hte point about satire. Intentionally?
What is your point about satire?
"World's worst person" is a satirical statment. Olbermann does not believe it to be true. Phony is not a satirical statement. Gibson believe it to be true.
So you know for sure that Olbermann does not believe that Bill OReilly is the worst person in the World? You are 100% sure it is comedy? Where is the link that shows that?
Yes. It's common sense. He thinks he's a bad person, but not the worst. I am also 100% certain that Jonathan Swift did not actually want to kill and eat Irish poor children. I am sorry I don't have a link for you on that one either.
Crimson2, you have jlyons's blood all OVER your hands.
just to be clear. we do have to spell it out for some people. you don't mean blood on his hands literally?
Uh oh!
Here's my evidence: O'Reilly isn't always his "Worst Person" nominee, and doesn't even make the list a lot of the time. Gibson did for this evil bit of b.s., though.
Olbermann writes in the very first sentence of the prologue of his book The Worst Person in the World: And 2002 Strong Contenders, " They aren't really the worst persons in the world, of course.....But these Worsts (if you'll permit the term) are the mortal enemies of honesty and dignity, of selflessness and class." (Olbermann, pg1)
So, obviously KO is using satire. But why i had to go pull out a book to show how moronic your argument is when you could have used common sense is beyond me.
"Worst Person in the World" now makes a heck of a lot more sense. I had figured that Olbermann was being intentionally sensationalistic in the interest of Satire, but I didn't realize that O'Reilly had anything similar.
you said you did not see any difference. you're sort of covering all sides of the street here. your initial post was asking if stewart was "untouchable". no one said he was, but you are agreeing now that there was no reason to call him a phony based on his 9-11 remarks. but you want to justify that unwarranted attack with noting people being pronounced worst person in the world. but a reason is offered for that, whether you agree with the reason or not. or could it be that you really believe that they are being literally called worst person in the world?
I really believe that they are being called Worst Person in the World. And the reason I was asking if Stewart is an untouchable is how many times did I hear Don Imus call people Phonies on his MSNBC and radio show? He used to call Hillary a phony, the only thread I used to see was when he called her Satan. Media people who are opinionated at times call others phonyies, but it seems we are cherry picking here.
Context is everything. Gibson's use of "phony" indicates he thinks Stewart was happy or indifferent after 9/11.
Ok JLyons, if Olbermann does in fact think that Orally is the "Worst Person in the World" he at least gives examples to back it up (i. e. quoting some offensive crap that he has to say). Here, Gibson mocks Jon Stewart and calls him a phony, but doesn't give any actual evidence or even a reason for calling him so.
Your weird obsession with Olbermann is boring. Look up the word satire in the dictionary. It is overthetop rhetoric and a personal attack aimed at media people who make overthetop personal attacks on other people. This is not rocket science. You must be being intentionally obtuse to not GET that part of the joke. Your clumsy segue from the topic to your Olbermann obsession is kind of creepy.
What is creepy is the fact that you will not engage in a civil conversation.
I'm hearing a lot of WWWAAHHHHHH. This has been explained to you before. Your cyberwhining about Olbermanns worst person award is boring and creepy.
That's not that creepy, dude.
Oh maybe O'reilly's report on Malmedy just comes to mind...I doubt that Jon was even reading from a teleprompter anyway. It's not like he was looking up rightinto anything. Body actions speaks volumes. There is no argument to this, Gibson was so out of line all he did was make himself look like a heartless individual. That is being kind.
Not at all. We're just marvelling at Gibson's pettiness.
Let me get this right - Gibson is untouchable? When Gibson, nearly six years after a national tragedy that is still fresh on the minds of many Americans, makes fun of people who were moved by the event at that time, MMFA is expected to let it slide?
I realize we're living in a callous world, but I didn't realize that it was now acceptable to openly mock people who were still crying while the smoke from the WTC site was rising into the air.
Gibson is a moron, but what does his calling Stewart a phony have to do with anything? When even more hateful stuff is said by both sides on a daily basis.
This was more than name calling, this was mockery.
You're saying that the fact that others say worse things means that we should ignore things like this when Gibson says them?
Why? Why should we only notice the big issues? Maybe you can't concentrate on the big issues as well as the small, but that's why MMfA has a large staff, so that they can cover both big and small.
Oh, Gibson's a "moron," yet you are defending his idiocy by saying others are worse.
Very discerining individual, aren't you?
If he's such a "moron" why not move along and agree that his comments were out of line, as the implication is that if John Stewart can be derided for his authentic experience of the 9/11 disaster, so can any victim or survivor of that day.
Keep it up, you're truly on the side of the angels...
Mr what you said
If he's such a "moron" why not move along and agree that his comments were out of line, as the implication is that if John Stewart can be derided for his authentic experience of the 9/11 disaster, so can any victim or survivor of that day
Translation JLyons- You must conform to what we say. We must all speak the same, and if you dare to even question anything we will attack.
Nice debate folks.
Nice job of translating English into paranoid gibberish, Casey.
Do you KNOW what MMFA does? Does mocking Stewart as a phony further a conservative agenda? YES, its this months propaganda assignment. The left is phony, was it misinformation? Yes, Gibson has ZERO ability to back up this claim. So it belongs here. If you dont LIKE MMFA or its priorities there are a few million other websites out there or you could start your own and show them how to do it right. But it sure isnt YOUR call what they should and shouldnt be putting up here. This is what they do. Feel free to get over it.
Nor is it your call to monitor the comments and tell posters to go elsewhere if they don't agree with you.
If you don't like what other people say, feel free to get over it.
Or feel free to tell them what I THINK of it. Get over YOURSELF, you will NEVER tell me what to do. It only makes sense that if you are going to endlessly complain that MMFA is doing EXACTLY what they say there are going to do perhaps another site would be more to your liking. I will feel free to express that any way I choose. If you dont like it feel free to snivel about it.
That's right Solon, it's Tommy's job to do that! So, as Tommy wrote, "feel free to get over it." He's covertly implying not post anything which might pervade whatever Tommy might care to rant on about...whatever
If you don't like what other people say, feel free to get over it.
Weren't you the one who was chastising Solon for a clearly sarcastic remark a few days ago?
Solon should get over it rather than comment on it, but Tommy can't seem to get over it rather than try to tell us that MMfA doesn't understand what they should try to cover.
I find that hilarious, actually.
Rather than Tommy tell MMfA that they're missing their mission statement, he continually tells us. We're not even the people who he should be telling this stuff. On top of that, the same person who tells us that Solon should get over it can't seem to get over it. Is this an example of the principle of those who can, do, and those who can't, teach?
shill
"but what does his calling Stewart a phony have to do with anything?"
Gibson picked out a "leftist" comedian who is well known for using public figures' own words and actions - in context, no less - to show their stupidity on a highly rated comedy news program. Due to current events where Right-wing hypocrisy and idiocy overbounds, a great deal of Stewart's content relates to their particular stupidity. Instead of taking something of Stewart's in context and proving the charge of him being a phony, he and his producer instead mocked Stewart at one of his most vulnerable and honest, non-phony moments -- a moment he shared with his fellow New Yorkers and Americans while smoke was rising and bodies still being recovered and counted.
It's despicable, and should be recognized as such. Listeners who found this funny should be ashamed of themselves, as should sponsors who use their advertising dollars to keep this mess on the air.
I did not realize Stewart was a left comedian? Lets see if he is when Hillary is President and he starts making fun of her. I do not see him as being left or right.
This is why "leftist" was in quotes. I also believe that he is more centrist than he left or right, but whenever anyone is left of Limbaugh they're called "leftist" or "left wing" by the talking heads and dittoheads.
I think Jlyons is going to be nominated for "Stupidest commenter in the World"
Oh, if Hillary wins, the Daily Show will make her look like a total fool....simply by pointing out how big a fool she already is. It won't be hard.
Stewart has already been taking shots at the Democratic candidates. Some of 'em unfair, I think.
There is little worse, rhetorically, than mocking someone else's grief. Oh wait, there is one thing -- defending such mockery.
It ranks right up there with dishonestly turning a positive into a negative. Jon Stewart was being a patriotic American with him commentary that day 6 long years ago.
They tried to turn it into a negative. That's wrong. That should be highlighted here. I'm glad MMfA did it.
The Coulteresque approach. The cheap shot doesn't have to have a rhyme or reason. The mere fact that you are criticized apparently justisfies what you say.
Jon Stewart is not untouchable. His grief over what he saw happen near his home on September 11, 2001 is another matter entirely.
So, are you a phony or are you untouchable? Get the point?
The caller said there are too many Americans who are only out for what's best for them right now, and that needs to change.
He should look in the mirror. Bush and his cohorts and his supporters are the worst examples of people who would look out for their own best interests to the detriment of the rest of the American public. It's Bush who ignores the huge deficits and still fought to keep the tax cuts for those making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. It's Bush who has decimated the Justice Dept, to the detriment of our legal system for years to come.
The world was on our side after 9/11, not just all the American people. Bush caused that unity to dissolve by invading Iraq.
John Gibson couldn't argue that point fairly without pointing out who's to blame, so he went into an off topic rant about Jon Stewart. Stewart was clearly upset about 9/11, but was trying to say that although our country was shaken by the attacks, we will see the good remaining and build upon that goodness. How can anyone attack that?
"How can anyone attack that?" Nomobush
Cynical people who ruthlessly use 9/11 to further their agendas have used it for every deception they have perpetrated on the American people and are still using it to now mock a popular figure like Jon Stewart. Like many here have said time and again, they attack the messenger. And poor idiot slobs listening in Milwaukee think these guys are righteous. What crap.
Damn JJ, that was the worst limerick ever! ;-)
Seriously, though, total concurrence here with everything you said. The right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on 9/11, even though they act like it.
Hey J
Leave Milwaukee out of this argument. :P
Not the 1st time a right wing "news commentator" has mocked someone's pain and suffering simply because they disagree politically. Just add Gibson to the list of insensitive jerks that already includes Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, and Coulter. I guess it's just projection.
Maybe Gibson and his friends are incapable of feeling sadness and grief and only fake strong emotions for political or ratings purposes, so they assume that is other people's motivations.
They're sociopaths. They have no concept of anyone else's feelings. It's impossible for them to empathize. Our McMedia is a window into the psychology of madmen.
Keep in mind, this from a guy who is wetting his bed that there's a war against Christmas. Gibson is a phony even by the high standards set by Fox News.
Let me get this straight. If you actually live through an event and then discuss your personal, subjective experience of that event you are a "phony." But if you defer the draft 5 times, show no interest in military service, and then lie the country into a needless war of aggression you are authentic.
Got it. Hey, instead of "Angry Rich" can I be less formal and just go ahead and call him "Angry Dick?"
I think our Bush apologists are missing the point. Gibson has every right to say what he said...and MMFA has every right to call it to our attention so that we can exercise our right to call him an a$$hole.
Hey Brother, sorry to sound like I'm disagreeing with you here, but where you write:
"...gibson has every right to say what he said"
I'm sorry, but you're partly wrong.
While it's true that this jerk gibson has a First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and can say what he said anytime anywhere (and even to Jon Stewart's face), neither he nor his employer Fox News Radio, has any "right" to broadcast their opinions on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES... not in the least.
Because there is no such a thing as a "Freedom" or "Right to broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES"... none at all.
And to be sure, it's not that jerk gibson's (or his employer's) Freedom of Speech being cited here; had he said what he said anywhere else (especially in Jon Stewart's face), then fine and dandy, we all have our First Amendment Rights.
But the jerk gibson, and his employer Fox News Radio, have no right at all to broadcast anything on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES... none of us do.
You have a point. I think conservatives are a little hypocritical when it comes to what the FCC should and shouldn't allow. They think it's just fine for Rush Limbaugh to broadcast unchallenged GOP infomercials 15 hours a week, but if Janet Jackson's nipple appears for half a second....holy crap, it's the end of civilization!
It has become almost natural to us, when we watch the television or listen to the radio, to resond to what it is we see and hear, as though we were watching or listening to a friend or colleague or neighbor or even total stranger.
And were we to actually see and hear such stuff from our friends or from total strangers (as opposed to from the television or the radio), then we would say...
"Cool; everybody has a Freedom of Speech and a Right to say what they like. Fine with me; I like the First Amendment... it cuts my way, as well as anyone elses!"
But when we hear or see those same things being broadcast across the television and radio bands of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, our common sense might instead lead us to say...
"Whoa! What the? Who's broadcasting that on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES? Who the heck thinks that's what we License the use of our Public Property for, to broadcast that, on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?"
The difference being between the use of Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and not...
The difference being between the use of a License, by way of the FCC, to do something for which there is no Right (broadcasting on the television and radio bands), and the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech...
...which everybody has: me and you and our friends and colleagues and neighbors and total strangers even.
I'm sure you know, that your property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, was the medium on which this crap was broadcast.
Fox News Radio, by way of holding an FCC License, given to it by We the People and the Federal Government that stands for us... they (the ownership of Fox News Radio) employ their hack gibson, to go on our property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, to broadcast their political opinions: about Bush and 9/11 and (strangely) Jon Stewart.
I'm sure you know that already... but do you think about it much?
Many, if not most, Republicans think that is just swell. Market forces will keep the radio waves pure! After all, they will argue that the Constitution doesn't give the government any such jurisdiction. But then, let Howard Stern say a dirty word and see how they feel about "market forces".
Gibson's hair is a phony.
Imagine his hairspray expenses.
You must have meant John Edwards, not Gibson...right?
I think he meant Gibson, the man who mocked a person for crying at the site of destruction and death.
In the interests of real men everywhere, I must politely ask that you use quotes around the term when you refer to Gibson as anything approaching a "man."
True. He always looked like a muppet to me.
Stewart is a patriot, Gibson is a d-bag. Why this is even more comical? Gibson wouldn't dare go on John's show, because he knows he'd get his a$$ handed to him. The fact that Gibson cannot recognize sincerity should be no surprise to anyone. Gibson's obvious case of credibility envy is great considering he's envious of a "comedian".
John Gibson regurgitates hate
His says what most folks defecate
He is just a loyalist
Loves King George the royalist
So Milwaukee cons let him skate
I was just having the same thoughts. I wonder how wise it is for Gibson to pick this fight? Stewart and his writers are razor sharp, and Gibson is an easy target.
Well if Jon has a rebuttal you can bet it will be all over youtube.
I think you'll find Stewart has a little something lacking among those in the right-wing, even when he's being satirical: Class. So I don't expect any sort of reposte. He (and Colbert) laid off Jerry Falwell when he died.
What I think allows Gibson and right-wingers of his ilk to mock Jon Stewart's reaction to 9/11 (which was undoubtedly heartfelt) is his conviction that anyone who aligns himself with the left in any way cannot possibly actually love their country.
It's a really weird prejudice, but there it is. It seems to be pretty much accepted as a given by a whole subset of the Right that liberals hate America. It's not just a divisive and derisive talking point, they really believe it.
Strange.
This is actually quite true, and something I hadn't connected with this kind of repugnant behavior.
These people believe that liberals hate America just as fervently as my father believes that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test our faith in God -- and neither position makes one lick of sense.
It's a cult of hate, ya see. It attracts alienated sociopaths who just hate all of society, period. They love to hate, they live to hate. Look at their ideology, it's pure hatred of any and every in sight. Their McMedia is a psychic orgy of bigotry, spite, and strife. They scarf it down like french fries, Evil Empire action figures included.
We liberals get the most hatred because we like to love...and what does Hate hate the most? Love. Detests it. Love stops the Hate, 'tis the cure for their poisons. That's why it's socialism versus sociopathy. Unfortunately, sociopathy is winning. Everyone keeps voting for them over and over again.
There's the strangeness. Why do Americans keep voting for people who suck at running nations? People who make rotten choices? Consistently. That's what I find so weird.
Beautifully said Redking!
Why is Gibson bringing this up? Did he get the latest ratings and find out his own show falls between whale sh-it on the bottom of the ocean and sea anemone? Or is this just another right wing deflection - ol' Rove was nothing but a sobbing mass of phony yesterday, so now Gibson must defend a fellow republican by dredging up this? Talk about phony!
When Gibson says John Stewart was a "phony" after 9/11, what he trying to say is Stewart is unpatriotic. But the real patriots oppose this president.
There's plenty to bash about bush.
The only parallel between 9-11 and Pearl Harbor would've been if after the Japanese attacked us, Roosevelt declared war on China.
FDR probably should have. Chiang Kai-Shek's underworld bosses were selling off our aid shipments to the Japanese. We gave China $6 billion, of which half disappeared, somewhat CPA-run Iraq-like. Chiang never fought the Japanese. Only Nationalist Chinese troops that took them on in real battle were directly generaled by Stillwell, whom Chiang tried to hinder at every turn. China wasn't much of an ally in WWII.
Probably because they were essentially under Japanese rule then.
No, this was the part still under fascist Nationalist rule. You ought to read up on the people who ran China in the 1940s. Chiang was himself a former tong hitman, his finance minister was good at getting US money and then making it disappear into his own pockets, his generals would sell off the supplies of their own men to enrich their personal fortunes. General Stillwell detested working with the Nationalists, he said they were no better than the Nazis. In many ways, they were worse. The Nazis actually fought well, the Nationalist Chinese wouldn't fight, period.
I live in Canada, and have been listening to a bit of Fox News radio programming through Sirius radio. I am a news and political junkie and eat up anything I can get but Fox News is an anomaly to me, not only is its practices accepted but actually supported by a lot of people. Gibson was the first personality to catch me by surprise, I've known about Hannity and O'reilly for a while, but never heard of Gibson. His arrogance was astonishing especially to callers, even conservative callers. His whole show seemed like a smear campaign, which is fine if he was broadcasting out of his basement, but he's not. But this is not the only problem, I know people agree with him and they are entitled to do so, but the show its self is dreadfully awful. I can only listen to the show for about 10min or so before having to change the dial but when I go back an hour later he's repeating the exact same things. Its definitely not news but if people see this as entertainment thats just as disturbing. But people have to, Fox News is a business after all and if they weren't getting advertising for his programming he wouldn't be there.
Sorry for my long winded post, I've be waiting for a Jon Gibson topic to get this off my chest. Next time I will be more direct.
There is no way in hell Gibson and his ilk can compete with Jon Stewart, so what have they to fight back with but scurrilous innuendo. He will never, never reach the same level of a Jon Stewart!
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=91488
I guess Karl Rove is faking his emotions, or is he just acting?
Gibson's a dirtbag. Just a dirtbag. I know that doesn't move the dialog forward one bit, but that is my whole reaction. What a waste of human life... Who needs him?
Thanks SFR it had my howling. The newest is good to.
Gibson's a real scumbag.
What a couple of jerks. Desperation is so unattractive.
What a petty little man. He's just jealous because Jon Stewart never parodies his stupid ass.
Grow up Gibson!
Imagine what the reaction on the Right would have been if Gibson gave an emotional speech after 9-11 and Jon Stewart had mocked him like Gibson mocked Stewart. They would have been outraged. They would have used this as proof that the Left hates America. Knuckdraggers like Limbaugh and Hannity would have been calling for Stewarts head!
But I guess it is ok for a Right-winger to make fun of a genuine show of patriotic emotion by a liberal and call him a "phony". It just confirms my belief that conservatives are hypocrites and self-righteous jerks.
John Gibson is a silly, embarrassingly irrelevant, graceless little man. Fox has a stable of these types. He's kind of like Alan Colmes, about whom one often wonders, "Why is this man on tv?"
Clearly Mr Gibson has his fans, but then, some people still revere Joe McCarthy (Coulter O Coulter wherefore art thou?) and Lester "Bad Axe " Maddox. And yes, while I didn't like either of those two, they did evidence more sparkle, verve and zazz, - even if, of the evil kind - than the sad, petulant and oddly whinning Mr Gibson. Ah, one can see, he yearns, so transparently yearns to be an equal in the company of the obnoxious but energetic Mr Hannity or Conservo alpha Bill-O or the blustery and powerful Mr Limbaugh. One suspects he waged his peculiar and ill-considered attempt at mocking Jon Stewart in a vain attempt to mimic his betters - but it didn't work as satire (takes more skill and a finer hand than Gibson can muster) and as more rudimentary mocking (it's hard to mock someone who makes a living at self mockery). The big boys are better at picking their targets...rule #1: pick someone who cares what other people think about them, the more bloated their self image, the better. John, John, John, will you ever learn?
"Some are born great; some achieve greatness; some have greatness thrust upon them." Alas, Mr Gibson, bear no bitterness, but these fates are not to be yours.
RSW58, didn't you get your "conservative "talking points" memo. Only conservatives are concerned about the safety of our country. Only conservatives are concerned with the safety of our borders. Only conservatives are true patriots. Only conservatives are concerned about the welfare of our troops. Only conservatives are concerned about crime. Only conservatives can talk to God. Only conservatives can speak about 9/11. Oh and for future "talking points" tune into Fox News cause even though they are conservative they're "fair and balanced".
Somebody really should do a psychological comparison between Republicans and sociopathic behavior. There's an astonishing emotional disconnect some of these people have that veers on mental illness.
I've seen that video, I have a copy. Anybody who thinks Stewart is faking his performance is mentally disturbed.
I'll be most interested to see how Mr. Stewart responds to this little nugget of wisdom.
Stewart commented on Wednesday's TDS. While talking with Stephen Hayes, author of "Cheney," he said the fundamental problem is the right doesn't want to debate the issues like execution of the war; they want to ridicule and question the sincerity and patriotism of anybody who doesn't follow their marching orders.
Regarding Gibson, he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "There's this idiot on Fox News right now taking my words from after Sept. 11 and calling me a phony because my grief didn't turn into acquiescence."
I don't know that Gibson (or his aide) has a reason for calling Stewart a phony.
It is the insult du jour from the right.
The transcript is wrong. At the end he said, "We ... uh ... need another 9-11." Please correct it.