About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Following Media Matters exclusives, CNN dismantles Fox's lies about Jennings

October 02, 2009 7:17 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

EXCLUSIVE: Statement from former student at center of Fox-fueled Jennings controversy

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News seeks to confirm wildly inaccurate reporting that it's already aired on Jennings controversy; former student seeks Fox News correction

EXCLUSIVE: Media Matters confirms student at center of Fox fueled Jennings controversy was of legal age

CNN debunks Fox News' witch hunt against Jennings

CNN's Yellin debunks right-wing smears of Jennings

Right-wing caricatures of Jennings undercut by broad support he has received

Conservative media unleash anti-gay rhetoric in attacks on Jennings

Hannity and Fox News defended Hastert during Foley scandal

Despite evidence to contrary, Fox News machine claims Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape"

More witch-hunting: Fox News targets "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Major Tom (October 02, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
      6  
      Nice Work.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rugger69 (October 02, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
          18
        So in order to make himself look like "a big man on campus" Jennings lied in his book about the situation. Well in my opinion he lied in his book what else will he lie about.
        He is to help school children what example does that set for them?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 02, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
          9  
          What a fool. There's no evidence he lied in the book. None at all.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (October 02, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
            1 11
            Well either Jennings or Brewster lied, take your pick. And if it was Brewster , why believe him now?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rugger69 (October 02, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
              1 10
              DING DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by vysotsky (October 03, 2009 6:28 am ET)
                11  
                Loser loser, quite obtuse, sir.

                You really want to try that desperate argument just because the details of a conversation that took place more than 20 years ago are conflicted? Fine. I'll explain why it's a ridiculous position.

                Brewster's date of birth should be easy enough to check. Maxim Lott has Brewster's last name and should have no problem confirming the birth date on his driver's license. If Brewster was of legal age of consent at the time of the conversation and Jennings was simply mistaken about the details when he recounted the story years later, then this particular case is closed: there was not even a potential case of statutory rape, regardless of whether or not you happen to think that Brewster of Jennings have any credibility. End of story.

                But just for the sake of demolishing your argument:
                "Well either Jennings or Brewster lied, take your pick. And if it was Brewster , why believe him now?"

                Well if Brewster did "lie", your only evidence of this is Brewster's current account of the events. The reason to believe him now is implicit in your own question: you believe him now if you think he's previous lied. I can't imagine how blinded to reason and common sense a person would be if one were willing to engage in that kind of pretzel logic just for the sake of attacking Jennings and Brewster.

                As for whether or not Jennings "lied", tell me please which of these scenarios strike you as more likely: 1) that Jennings would purposely tell a story about how an underage student told him that he had been a victim of statutory rape and Jennings didn't go to the authorities, or 2) Jennings was mistaken about details of a short conversation he had in 1988?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Unreality (October 03, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                  4  
                  With FL's logic, Reagan should have resigned the Presidency for many of the "tall tales" he told.

                  Reagan had this one about hostages, TOW missiles and a buncha guys in some Central American country that was pretty amusing. Since nobody's sexual identity, aside from Fawn Hall's, was ever raised, I guess that wasn't an important misrepresentation.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by rugger69 (October 03, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
                    5
                  NO because someone in his position should be of great moral resolve. He has none and has demonstrated it here in his book.

                  These "so called Harvard and Yale type educated" that are the pillar of our communities are basically frauds and lairs. They have spent their entire life sheltered in the would of so called "academia" they have know idea what it is like to get up every morning at 5 am and work 8 hours a day.
                  They barely work because all the grad students do all the teaching, they lack the conman sense needed to get through the day out side the campus.
                  They fell that just because they have higher learning they can tell us what and how to think and feel about things.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by vysotsky (October 03, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Who are you quoting when you write "these 'so called Harvard and Yale type educated'"? To what question are you replying with "NO because someone in his position should be of great moral resolve"? Why is academia "so called", or a word that should be in quotation marks? What in his book indicates to you that Jennings is not "of great moral resolve"? Was "they lack the conman sense" a typo or a Freudian slip?

                    Or, to put it bluntly: what are you talking about?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mescal (October 04, 2009 2:30 am ET)
                      4  
                      Rugger was simply practicing typical reichwing anti-intellectualism. Someone's education and intellectual achievement are suspect, and seen as evidence of their Otherness. They are dismissed as 'eggheads' by these simmering rubes, and accused of living in 'ivory towers', and are not to be trusted.

                      In other words, Rugger hates smart people.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rugger69 (October 05, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
                           
                        If they are soooo smart why are we in this mess, I bet a a group of farmers could run the government betterand make sound financial decisions then Gietner teh tax cheat or Paulson
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (October 04, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Jennings worked as a teacher in a high school. Obviously, as that is when this whole incident took place.

                    If you think that teachers don't work their butts off, you are utterly delusional.

                    I'm a high school teacher and guess what, buddy? I do wake up every morning at 5 AM, get to school, teach until 2:30, usually stay after the students leave until about 5 or 6 getting prepared for the next day's lessons, and then go home and continue writing lesson plans, doing research, re-reading the assigned books we have coming up, etc. etc. until about 10 PM. And I do all of this for a fairly un-impressive salary, an absurd amount of which I usually end up putting right back into my classroom.

                    So it offends me quite deeply for you to imply that teachers have a cushy job. You clearly have no idea at all what you're talking about.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by EZ4you2say (October 05, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
                     
                  How do we know that is "Brewster"?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 03, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
              2  
              Actually, there's no evidence that anyone lied.

              Brewster was 16, almost 17, when the incident occurred. One time, Jennings mentioned a sophomore being 15. That's true, that a typical sophomore is 15 when they start the school year. And the typical sophomore is 16 when they end the school year. This sophomore was 16 at the beginning of the school year, but the typical one is 15. Based upon the audiotape (not the book, the audiotape - see, you don't even know where the "15" came from, yet you're trying to tell US what the facts are?) it easily could be possible that the teacher was simply describing the typical sophomore at the beginning of the school year, and not trying to describe this student at all! Or he could have simply misspoke.

              Later on, when this comment became fodder for crazy rightwingers, he had a law firm document that in fact, the kid was 16 in a legal cease and desist letter. Those letters have significant power, and have to be backed up by factual information and verified by the lawyer who writes it. Later writings by Jennings show that the kid was 22 5 calendar years after the event, so the kid had to have been 16 or 17 when it happened, but FoxNews never provided their viewers with that contradictory info, much less tell them that the info that indicated the kid was 16 was much more persuasive and that it was highly unlikely the kid was 15.

              It was FoxNews who lied by omission, and if you think you're going to get away with this lie about Jennings or Brewster on this site, you've got another thing coming.

              Stop digging. You look stupid doing so.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by rugger69 (October 03, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
                  4
                You sound like a lawyer always have to muddle up a issue with that crap. It was in his book, so either he lied when he wrote it or the person lied when he told him his age.

                Those are the facts plain and simple don't try to assume or interject any that is not there.
                Sounds to me an other academia type has finally been called on the carpet for a book he wrote that may be filled with more lies then we know.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by vysotsky (October 04, 2009 5:04 am ET)
                  3  
                  Good one, rugger69! You really had me going there for a while until this post, when I realized that you were simply satirizing the faux populist, anti-intellectual rhetoric of contemporary conservative talk radio. In retrospect the clues were obvious: nobody could actually rationalize criticizing a man just for being educated and writing books. I'm sorry, I should have picked this up sooner and played along. But better late than never. Ahem. OK, here we go:

                  "Yeah, that's right rugger69! Academia types like Jennings have no business teaching our children or even being involved in the school system. What does he know about real education anyway? He's never worked a day in his life! The only thing he knows how to do is teach my children to be gay. Thanks but no thanks, Mr. Czar!"

                  There. Better?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by swift (October 05, 2009 4:02 am ET)
                  1  
                  You know, doing a study of right-wing rhetoric, it seems to me it could be summed up this way: the old fascists hated one particular human trait. It was "cosmopolitanism," it was "effete," and so on. It was "anti-German," or "effeminate and weak." This was the underlying theme of all their antisemitic ravings. Nowadays, of course, the right can't be antisemitic; they just attack that human trait head on: what is that trait? Intelligence. Learning. Intellect. Sensitivity.

                  They've only got one way to embody that thuggish imagery left today: gay. All the qualities that Hitler portrayed as Jewish, and thus held up for hatred, are now ascribed to gays. Portraying the enemy as gay is the way they prey on the insecurity of young men desperate to prove they're super-masculine, making the right-wing psyche a constant sneering and hatred of anything that really makes us most human. The Party of No indeed.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by jbrantow (October 02, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
          9  
          So where's your whining about all your rethug heroes like ensign, coburn, sanford and cheney. They're all proven liars and their lies involved adultry and death by "family values moralists" You rethug hypocrite liars really are a pathetic mob.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tunghoy (October 02, 2009 9:27 pm ET)
             
          Maybe he'll lie about war and national security, leading America to spend over a trillion dollars killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a country halfway around the world. Oh, wait....Bush already did that.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (October 02, 2009 9:54 pm ET)
          3  
          Go get a clue...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mustardman (October 03, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
          2  
          tr0ll!~
          Report Abuse
    • Author by John Paradox (October 02, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
      8  
      "...something most of us have experienced... adolescence"

      Faux News anchors are still waiting.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bewildered (October 03, 2009 6:51 am ET)
         
      President Obama.

      If you hear of this story please stand behind Jennings. It's the right thing to do.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by BUzz (October 04, 2009 12:29 am ET)
        1
      Let's see now, Jennings is counseling a 15 year old male about having sex with an older man and he says that "teachers back then didn't have much experience with this kind of thing". My God!! What "experience" do you need to have to know that queer sex between a 15 year old male and and older queer male is not only morally wrong but illegal (it's called statutory rape). The guy is an idiot.

      Jennings finds that the founder of NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- (a bunch of sickos) Harry Hay, is 'one of the people that's always inspired me,'

      And our President appoints this guy to head school safety. Just look at who Hussein surrounds himself with and you see who he really is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (October 05, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
           
        you know, i would respond directly to this but seeing as there has been a ton of discussion about this topic and the facts have been laid out quite clearly by some of the posters here i would just stongly advise you to do a little research on the topic before you post. otherwise you just look foolish. and remember, rush, hannity and beck are not research, they are anti-research
        Report Abuse