Gibson: "The war on Gibson is real" and "it's pursued every day"
SUMMARY: On his August 14 radio show, Fox News' John Gibson stated that he and his show's executive producer, "Angry Rich," are "being attacked on a liberal website" -- Media Matters for America -- because "[w]e played some audio of Jon Stewart crying after 9-11." Gibson also said that Media Matters "attacked me and 'Angry Rich' for an unfortunate turn of the phrase last week," referring to the comment "Angry Rich" made that John Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick."
On the August 14 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, John Gibson said he and the show's executive producer, known on the air as "Angry Rich," are "being attacked on a liberal website," referring to Media Matters for America. "Angry Rich" responded that they were being attacked because "[w]e played some audio of [Comedy Central's The Daily Show host] Jon Stewart crying after 9-11." As Media Matters documented, on the August 10 show, Gibson and "Angry Rich" aired a clip of comments Stewart made on the September 20, 2001, edition of The Daily Show and mocked them. On the August 14 show, Gibson and "Angry Rich" aired the same Daily Show clip that they had aired on August 10 and again mocked Stewart's remarks. Gibson asked: "So, they said I was mean to do that?" to which he said: "Well, I guess I was."
Gibson also said Media Matters "attacked me and 'Angry Rich' for an unfortunate turn of the phrase last week." They then re-aired the comment "Angry Rich" made on the August 3 show, documented by Media Matters, that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (NC) "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." Gibson claimed that "what was underlying that statement was not just hyperbole." As Media Matters also documented, on his August 7 show, Gibson called the statement "unfortunate" while "Angry Rich" said it had been "a poor choice of words." On neither the August 7 nor the August 14 broadcast did "Angry Rich" apologize for his statement.
Later on the August 14 program, Gibson claimed that "[t]he war on Gibson is real" and that "it is pursued everyday by the people who just can't abide by what you hear on this radio program." To that, "Angry Rich" replied, "David Brock is listening 24 hours a day." The comment was followed by an audio clip of an unidentified person singing the words "Gay boyfriend."
From the August 14 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
GIBSON: We seem to have gotten ourselves into it again, me and Angry Rich.
ANGRY RICH: Isn't it great?
GIBSON: Yeah, it's fabulous. We're being attacked on a liberal website. Is this a Media Matters --
ANGRY RICH: It's on a bunch of sites right now. Media Matters is one of them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE [audio clip]: Google it on Media Matter.
GIBSON: That's one of those watchdogs that supposedly rides herd on us wild and crazy guys.
ANGRY RICH: That's right.
GIBSON: And what was it I was attacked for this time?
ANGRY RICH: Today?
GIBSON: Yes.
ANGRY RICH: We played some audio of Jon Stewart crying after 9-11 to try to juxtapose how he's been bashing Bush for the past six years.
GIBSON: Right, I mean, all this -- you know, you listen to The Daily Show or watch it, it's a funny show. Jon Stewart's hysterical, and, I mean, you know, he just tears this war on terror apart, and, you know, just a couple of days ago, we said, "Let's roll back the hands of the clock and see what he was saying when he came back on the air after 9-11."
Well, he was all teary and sobby, and, you know, I -- at the time, it's -- I believed him. At the time, I said, "Man, you know, that came from the heart." But now after listening to --
ANGRY RICH: Six years --
GIBSON: -- six years of him attacking everything that's been done to make sure there isn't another one of those, you just got to wonder.
ANGRY RICH: You got to conclude he's a phony.
GIBSON: Well, that's what I concluded, and we're being attacked for coming to that conclusion. But I ask you, anybody who listens -- or, excuse me once again -- watches The Daily Show, Jon Stewart's a very funny guy. I mean, it's just like throwing, you know, throwing fish to clapping seals.
He walks out on that stage and tosses fish to that audience, and the fish are "Bush sucks." Boy, and they eat it up. So, we said, "Well, well, well, what did he say?" So we looked back and we found that, gee, he'd gotten all weepy way back then, and it just didn't seem to match with what you hear today.
STEWART [audio clip]: The view from my apartment --
GIBSON: Oh, my God.
STEWART [audio clip]: -- was the World Trade Center.
GIBSON: He's breaking up. Oh, my God.
STEWART [audio clip]: And now it's gone.
GIBSON: Hmmm.
STEWART [audio clip]: And they attacked it.
GIBSON: They did.
STEWART [audio clip]: This symbol of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce.
GIBSON: Yeah. OK. So, they said I was mean to do that? Well, I guess I was. But they also attacked us -- attacked me and Angry Rich for an unfortunate turn of the phrase last week.
ANGRY RICH [audio clip]: A man who whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick.
GIBSON: Yeah, well, and what was underlying that statement was not just hyperbole. What Angry Rich was referring to was that the Edwards campaign took all of the email that were sent to Elizabeth Edwards, when it was announced that her cancer had returned, and put all of those people on a fundraising list.
So, if you wrote a -- and I think the example I used was if Laura Ingraham, who's, you know, a -- not by any means a John Edwards supporter and herself is a cancer survivor. If she expressed to Elizabeth Edwards a little sympathy and, you know, "Hope you do well and get well," all of a sudden, Laura Ingraham's going to get a John Edwards fundraising letter. That's the reward for expressing sympathy for Mrs. Edwards having a recurrence of cancer. You get a "Please send John a hundred bucks" note?
ANGRY RICH: What a fraud.
GIBSON: Exactly. There was a little bit of rib there at the end.
[...]
GIBSON: The war on Gibson is real. It is pursued every day by the people who just can't abide what you hear on this radio program.
ANGRY RICH: David Brock is listening 24 hours a day.
GIBSON: I know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE [audio clip]: (singing) Gay boyfriend.
GIBSON: And he's -- I'm sure he'll attack me tomorrow for suggesting that maybe Elizabeth Edwards has somehow broken her own shield by some of her activities and some of her statements.
And as usual Keith Olbermann took this material and named him the Worst Person in the World last night. I wonder if Keith will repeat it tonight, or will he go after Bill OReilly? Bill OReilly started in on the Daily Kos again yesterday when I was watching him ( I had to turn it off after because I got tired of hearing the same insanity).
Gibson is wrong, he should not even joke about 9/11.
John, you are not being "attacked" by MMFA. They simply highlighted a couple of conversations you & Angry Rich made over the airwaves.
Some of the posters here "attacked" you. There is a difference. I would think you'd be smart enough to know the difference.
Don't laugh. The War on Gibson is every bit as real as the War on Christmas.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Yeah, it's fabulous. We're being attacked on a liberal website. Is this a Media Matters --// GIBSON
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA....
This explains alot, he equates debunking his distortions with war, opposed to the death and carnage created by his distortions!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I agree and right now Gibson is getting pwned!
Sure, Gibson, act surprised that you're being attacked. What did you think would happen, you jolly old fart? That once Christmas was gone, we'd leave it at that? Ha! You fool.
Thinking you wouldn't be recognized for who you really are just by shaving your beard was your failing. We've seen lots of pictures - that shock of white hair, the shaking belly, the bulbous red nose. And you've been spotted with the smoke from your pipe circling your head like a wreath. Hint "Gibson": don't be hanging around reindeer stalls if you want to hide your identity.
Run if you want, but you'll only be postponing the inevitable. Have you noticed that you seem to be short (no pun intended) a few elves in your workshop? Think maybe they were just down at the mini-bar in Yellowknife swilling eggnog and watching the wet tuque contest? Think again, you human chimney enema. Their fate will soon be yours.
Go ahead and tell the world - we're not ashamed of this war. It may just be the last words you utter. Prepare to meet your toymaker.
Neon, that was a shocking expose...I do want to reclaim the jolly old elf for the little kids, though, it is toooo creepy to associate him with Gibson & angry.
How about Howdy Dodie & Mr. Bluster? (dating myself) They always seemed a little creepy to me as a kid.
I know, I know. It's really disappointing to find it out now, and I didn't want to be the one to tell you. But all the other adults already knew, and I knew you'd find out sooner or later. I just wanted it to be from me.
Don't be mad - we hid it from you not to "fool" you, but because it added to the magic of the season. But we all must come to truth eventually, and frankly, we need the soldiers in our war on Christmas.
I realize you've passed step 1 and step 2 in your comment: denial, then bargaining. Will you be OK until you reach acceptance? If you get over it soon enough, a bunch of us are heading over to the tree farm tonight, and we'd love for you to join us. Dress is "casual black", bring your axe...
Hmm, not ready to commit. I think I must go for de-Nile, 'cause with Gibson shockingly exposed and the arctic melting I need a body of water well away from the forest where your renevous is planned.
Good luck, and remember, we're all counting on you.
Maybe this year Fox can expand it to:
"The War on John Gibson's Christmas"
I am sorry, and I know "the war on me is real" whenever I bring this up, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but come on! Does anything of any positive nature, whatsoever, come from highlighting this pathetic buffon, Gibson, and his smirking, egotistical attempts to legitimize himself through his radio program, or Fox show?
Other than giving Keith Olbermann more material on his highly rated MSNBC program I think nothing comes out of highlighting Gibson who is if not the most annoying person on cable TV today.
Well Tommy, being Gibson has almost messiah status he might influence millions of people with his opinions. Mostly folks needing lobotomies of course, but this thread gives everyone another chance to make fun of his hair ;-)
Ah, the hair! That makes him almost watchable...
Gibson doubtlessly paid less than $400 for that haircut, but whatever he paid for it, he got ripped off.
If Stewart had him on the show, that's the first question I'd want to see..."Did you pay for that haircut?"
He would do the same.
A$$holes should be called on BS as much as possible.
A-Friggin-Men!
Damn right they should. Couldn't agree more. Whats more is that Gibson should be called out for being a disgusting traitor to American ideals - this Fox hand-puppet is such a pu$$y for Murdoch's paycheck that he simply does as he's told. You know I'm sick to death of these little insects puffing their chests out like big men when they're in front of the camera or behind a microphone - hey Gibson, you scared little buck-toothed moron, let's step outside and settle this one - on behalf of John Stewart, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards and everyone else you've smeared from behind your cosy, safe little mike - I'm offering to kick your a$$ any time any place - come on tough guy! I thought you Repubicans never shyed away from a fight - while you're at it, bring your biggoted little homophobic buddy "Angry Rich" with you - after I'm done, I'll have you lick the blood off each others shoes. Oh, and O'Reilly - if you think this is hate speech, wait til you see what me and Andrea Mackris have waiting for you you pasty faced old pervert! Republicans know National Security my a$$!!! They're all cowards! (Gotta save a little respect for McCain's service, but that's it.) These Beltway Bastards always talking tough, but run a mile from a real fight - line-up you wimps! Hannity first and when i feel like a rest, I'll kick Tucker Carlson and Tweety Bird's a$$es as well. This is real life people - not the movies. Tough is people like Pat Tillman who believed in something and died for it - its not the fairytale that the scumbags who lied about him made up and it ain't the choreographed presentation of a borderline retarded President strutting about like Tom Cruise on the deck of a carrier - Mission Accomplished, my ass. You pu$$ies send kids off to die while you stay home and collect fat paychecks - real patriotic.
"Does anything of any positive nature, whatsoever, come from highlighting this pathetic buffon, Gibson"--tommy
What did you have in mind? Do you expect MMFA to cure cancer with their articles? Achieve world peace? Stop Global Warming? By that measure, no good has or will ever come out of this article nor any other here.
However, I do find it interesting that people like Gibson can say these sorts of things and still feel they have any value in the great debate. I am glad MMFA calls him on it so everyone can see what a fool he is for themselves in his own words.
I asked a legitimate question in good faith and if you can't answer it without a flippant response, I have no interest in discussing it with you.
Sorry,
You didn't "ask a legitimate question", you did what you most often do - attempt to deflect warranted criticism by questioning MMFA's motives.
Quick! Back under the bridge - someone is trying to steal your horde of dried toads!
Hurry!
Oh, and one should never question MMFA's motives? I realize you are only here to punctuate the thread topics, because that involves zippo critical thinking skills.....sorry Puddin', can't do that.
Tommy you did not get the memo? You are to never ask questions regarding anything other than sticking to the party line. You must never deviate.
10, 9, 8, 7....
I knew we'd hear from Mission Statement Girls--Tommy and CaseySpring--again.
perhaps if tommy got some new "questions", and casey got some new material beside saying you're right tommy. it's virtually the same thing everyday,
here's casey doing the same thing yesterday defending his troll "friend" jlyons. you're not allowed to question what tommy or jlons say or you get accused of stifling debate. scroll down.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708140001?offset=80&show=1#comments
Oh, and one should never question MMFA's motives?
No one said that, O master of the straw man. But one shouldn't always question MMFA's motives, either.
Everyones motives should always be questioned, that is what makes our society continue to be free.
So what exactly are your motives?
To get at the truth.
Which is?
Seriously - You sound like Tom Cruise for God's sake...
Just because you deem a particular thread worthless does not necessarily make it so... You're entitled to your opinion. I just think the indignance gets a little tired.
Dude, it's painfully obvious from your many and sundry postings here that...
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
You are welcome to question MMFA's motives. I don't see where that has anything to do with the validity of the argument they presented, but go ahead. Opine all day. Who cares.
Oh so when's the last time you questioned bush and the repub's motives caseydude? I just bet you've been on the case all along when this admin's lied cheated and murdered its way into infamy. Or are only lib websites on your intrepid radar, slick?
You can take your "Puddin'"...
...and rub it in your frickin' chest.
You never seem to be able to address the subject of an MMFA article. Instead, you either duck, dodge, bob and weave or you throw out a strawman.
MMFA is creating a litany for posterity.
Whether you like it or not.
Oooh, now that's nasty. If you weren't so pathetic, I'd think you were coming on to me.
Are you? (cause I will have to decline, sorry)
Good point Draft...
Media Matters should pull the plug on these Bozos--Tommy and Caseyspring--who simply want to fill up the posting board with diversions and pathetic crap questioning the Mission Statement.
Media Matters, give em' the boot. Time to put a stop to this crap.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
If you only had a clue how ridiculously paranoid you sound, oh, never mind.
It's not so much that you ask the same question over and over. It's that you do it to make every other thread about you. It's so tiresome.
That is a surprisingly fascist attitude. I hope you don't mean that. Tommy and Casey are entirely welcome to post what they like here as long as it adheres to the terms of use, which I think they definitely are adhereing to in this case.
Agreed... but, as I said to Casey above... It is only their opinion. Doesn't make it so. And, no one really needs to respond. But, the whining about how much worth a particular piece has just gets old, in my opinion.
Alright Open...
I'll defer to you in this case.
I respect your opinion.
Thanks, debunked. I appreciate that.
tommy, I have to tell you it is getting really easy to scroll past your postings. We all know you think there are many irrelevant subjects discussed here. Give yourself a well deserved break and start the "why is this here?" call and response dance once a week instead of daily.
I don't believe one has to pay a toll in order to get beyond my posts, so feel free to skip right on by them, free of charge. In fact, I wouldn't even waste my time responding to them if I were you, but hey, if you must.........
"I don't believe one has to pay a toll in order to get beyond my posts..." --tommy
I suppose we can all be thankful for that. Who could afford to post here otherwise?
There are comment sections to many websites that offer an "ignore" feature. Rather than ask for the meaningless commenters be removed for attempting to distract from the common goals of this site, you can press "ignore" on that poster, and you'll never have to read their words again.
I suggest MMFA develop this feature.
The Tommy button?
OMG. That is -brilliant-.
You set it in your profile, and every one of his meaningless, off-topic, whining, smarmy "WITH" posts would be hidden under a "Show this content" link.
Either that or a voting mechanism, with the ability to set your profile to only show posts that meet a certain rating. That would likely be some tedious programming, and I wouldn't expect MMFA to waste their money on it.
Yeah, Debunked. There should never be any opposing opinions here. Of all the nerve.
What is your complaint? After reading another in your ongoing string of questioning MMFA's motives. These posters decided to question YOURS. You seem to be very sensative about others doing to YOU what you do all the time.
Please pardon those of us who are so sick and f'n tired of your "WITH" themed posts that they can't be responded to in any kind of a serious manner.
I think it is valid to discuss Gibson's hate-mongering if only to point out the terrible license he and his kind take.
If people hadn't spread the word about the atrocities in our own country to our own people, they would never been addressed.
I'm old enough to have seen George Wallace's 'Segration forever' speach in the '60s and that viewing turned people (my Republican parents included) against him and his kind. It pays to be vigilant in my view and Gibson may be a buffoon,but he speaks to and for many. Exposing his lies and hate-speech is critical.
Of course some good comes of this.
Deceitful people are not allowed to poison the political atmosphere with their dishonesty unchallenged. That's always a good thing.
For way too many years, too many deceitful people on the right were allowed to repeat their nonsense, and we've seen the damage done. Little things like this add up to a big pile that influences elections and political choices in an unreasonable way.
Since MMFA's existence and the "dishonesty that's being challenged" here, has the discourse improved or gotten worse, in your opinion?
I would guess it's worse.
You could be right, tommy! Maybe it has a lot to do with the GOP's failure to create that permanent majority they wanted.
It appears to me that all of these catfight stories between media outlets are just senseless "inside the beltway stories".
Outside of the cable talking heads and the websites like mmfa...does anyone really care that they are offended because someone "attacked" them with words.
This "attack" business is important only to the blowhards with out of control egos and way too much air time or webspace to fill.
But I guess that all this silliness about being "attacked" keeps them out of the beer joints.
actually, most bars in Texas have web access, so it's now possible to blog and beer at the same time!
Blog, beer, and B.S. at the same time, Snoopy.
But then, I'm being redundant. Just the fact that it originates from the-state-that-most-wishes-it-was-Colorado implies the B.S. part....
:-)
Too funny! Just remember, in Texas, we never have to recite the "poem". You know, the one that goes
Spring has sprung,
fall has fell.
Now winter's here,
And it's cold as H-E-L-L!
I don't think the discourse has changed one bit on the national level, but I know that I am now better informed as to a good deal of the liberal (probably more Democratic than liberal) side of the debate. Before MMFA I only knew the conservative side of the issues. I only knew about liberal jerks and idiots from guys like O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh who made it seem like only liberals could be real idiots.
MMFA even helps me to understand the issues better when I disagree with MMFA. Measuring MMFA's success or failure by the tenor of the national dialogue is probably too ambitious a measuring stick. I don't think anything can really change it except a slow determined change in the demands from the public at large. I don't think MMFA has anywhere near the kind of exposure to affect that.
Your honesty is appreciated.
The right's ability to get away with their crap has been lessened significantly I think, and that's a good thing.
It's too bad that those on the right haven't seemed to learn from their losses and straightened up their acts. Because of that, the discourse hasn't improved much. Don't even try to tell me that both sides do it, because it's not true. Both sides don't have the same type of long term planning on how to hurt the opposition with terribly dishonest sniping.
I'd think that someone like you would want the right to straighten up their act so that your side would not continue to lose political capital and ground. You sure can't tell that from your behavior, and it's that behavior that is drawing scorn from many around you.
A fundamental problem with the right-wing media is that they consistently mischaracterize what they say. By doing so, they can have it both ways: engage in vitriol of the lowest order to rouse the rubes, then back away from their words so they can claim to be respectable.
Compare how Gibson characterizes what he said about Stewart to the actual audio clip. He is deliberately misrepresenting what happened on his show. But you don't have to take my word for it - thanks to MMFA, you can check it yourself. Wouldn't you consider that valuable?
Gibson is a man who has enormous access to our media, and thus, enormous ability to shape our discourse (imagine if Eric Alterman were given Gibson's access to TV, radio, and print - wouldn't that change the conversation a little?).
You may think he is just a buffoon - and, yes, he IS a buffoon - but he is influential, if only for defining the rightward limits of acceptable debate in this country.
MMFA does a real service in documenting the contradictory claims, false logic, and misleading statements of this man and all those like him. They are not wasting their time with anonymous bloggers or posters and Free Republic - they are documenting people with real influence. Finally, you can make up your own mind about the merits of these people's arguments, with documentary evidence to make an assessment.
That is why these people hate MMFA so much - they can't run away from their words any more.
Ellington,
I appreciate your words and opinions. But let me allow to speculate on why there is such vociferous defense of these types of items here by many on the left.
I believe it is retribution, of sorts. If the posters who constantly defend these slimy talk show host postings of their words were perfectly honest, in my opinion, they would fess up to the real reason they eat this stuff up.
It's because for years, they, and the rest of us, have to live with the ratings drubbing that these rightwing shows, and now Fox News, give to the left in this country. They have yet to figure out how to beat them in the ratings, or silence them somehow, so this becomes the next best thing. A place to take out the rage and "unfairness" they see permeating the airwaves, rightly or wrongly.
It's sort of a slap back at them for the crap they spew every day, and it feels good, as sort of some recourse against it.
I still feel that the political discourse has coarsened even more, things have not gotten better or less acrimonious at all. This has actually raised the level of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, back and forth.
My opinion........
My opinion is you are wrong about me. From where I stand I see a huge network owned by a small group of people who dictate what can and can't be shown. We've seen several examples of successful liberal shows getting canned for no reason - see Phil Donahue for instance. What passes for success is nothing more than targeted audiences. Rush is supposed to be popular, but his average audience is what - 5 million? There are 300 million americans, and his draw is a little over 1% of the population.
Ratings have nothing to do with the political discourse in America.
As you always say, Fox News, Limbaugh, Savage etc. have the ratings. most are very extreme in their views. None allow much of an opposing viewpoint to be expressed on their air.
If, the nation were skewed to reflect the unbalanced ratings, you might have a point. America is as evenly divided as it's ever been. So any mention of ratings is meaningless, except for the networks getting the ratings and their increased revenues.
Most of talk radio and cable news has been a sounding board for the administration, their policies and their wars.
Fox News, Fox Radio, the EIB Network, Talk Radio Network, Sinclair Network and Clear Channel Radio all have an agenda that has as much to do with promoting right wing philosophy as they do with earning profits.
Worrier,
My point is when many people defend why this stuff is highlighted here, they say because ignoring it does more damage, that it goes unchallenged.
Well, I will ask you - since MMFA's inception, do you think the culture of these talk shows highlighted here, and others, have coarsened further the rhetoric, or has the civility and respect for political opposition been more evident?
I think we both will agree that it has not improved at all. The "gotcha" factor has made it worse. Now, I will give you that it does highlight how idiotic these talk show hosts words really are. But who didn't know that except for their hardcore listeners anyway?
The entrenched have become more entrenched, the nastiness has increased, the movement away from serious discourse and respectful disagreement has gotten worse, and the oppositions are more emboldened than ever to "take down" their nemesis.
Now I don't blame MMFA for this, they aren't responsible for Rush, or Savage or the rest of them. But to act all high and mighty and above the fray is not reality either. When you get down in the mud and play, you get dirty too.
I think it is pretty naive to think one little website could alter the degree of coarseness on the media.
I view MMFA as more of a source for information and critique of the media. They do a great job of that.
Then why not just admit that the reason this stuff is here is for the entertainment of the posters to snap back at the media figures they don't like?
That is the bottom line reason. All this loftiness with regard to damage being done in the political atmosphere if it goes unchallenged, is a load of baloney.
I think the subjects referred to in the articles written by MMFA do damage. I don't think there is anything inconsistent with pointing that out either. Just because pointing it out hasn't changed much in the national dialogue, doesn't make it an untrue statement.
Secondly, I don't know why MMFA can't necessarily be informative and entertaining (for whatever reasons) at the same time.
Thirdly, I think many people come here for many different reasons. You are free to try and read their minds as it seems you are already doing.
Your second point first, I never said that MMFA can't be entertaining. I said that the reason people like Gibson are here is so posters can vent their rage against him, for sport, for entertainment.
As for damage these people do, then logically refuting it, or combatting it, would hope to rectify at least some of the damage done, right? If not, what is the point then? As I said, for the poster's entertainment.
Your third point made no sense with regard to what is being discussed here?
wow, I have enormous respect for your tenacity and boundless energy. In my line of work we generate many many proposals and bids knowing that only a fraction will result in billable hours. MMFA generates many many postings knowing that only occaisionaly will one make a real impact. But, it is impossible to know exactly which bid or proposal will lead to a juicy multi year contract, and for MMFA it is impossible to know how many times they have to point out the shameless pandering and fear mogering of a Gibson before it has an impact. Maybe it will take 5 years of work? I say keep the pressure on and hope for the best.
"Your second point first, I never said that MMFA can't be entertaining. I said that the reason people like Gibson are here is so posters can vent their rage against him, for sport, for entertainment."--tommy
I'm sorry, I read that like it was the only reason, which you didn't say. I am sure some people (myself included) like to come here to vent at these morons. I don't see anything wrong with that. I come here to learn information as well - often what the media aren't telling us.
Also, I don't watch Fox at all anymore and MMFA is a good way for me to catch up on their antics without patronizing their establishment directly.
"As for damage these people do, then logically refuting it, or combatting it, would hope to rectify at least some of the damage done, right?"--tommy
I agree. It does just that for many of the people who visit here. Unfortunately, MMFA is not widely read enough to be very influential in the national discourse. Of course, there is always hope that MMFA will become more popular to the point where change can occur. It is a pretty ambitious goal, but nonetheless a worthy one.
As for my third point, I mistakenly thought you were pointing out the only reasons posters come here, but I was wrong about that.
What is the point of fighting fires it hasnt stopped fires from happening. What is the point of arresting murderers, it hasnt stopped murders from happening. MMFA exposes the lies and misinformation agenda of these bloviators that is a resource that goes far beyond allowing us to vent.
Then why not just admit that the reason this stuff is here is for the entertainment of the posters to snap back at the media figures they don't like?
I don’t think the stuff is here for “entertainment”. While you are right, it feels good to rid yourself of nasty feeling towards the words of Rush, Sean, Neal and Savage there can be more. I use this site to e-mail Fox and other outlets regarding their programming and the people they choose to report it. Will I make a difference? I don’t know but I appreciate MMFA giving me the speedy route to reach them and make my dislike known. When a large group of people threaten to boycott a certain product they force changes to be made to that product. I think, IMO that the misinformation highlighted here allows the people to become aware of the “faulty” product (Fox News for example) and allows the people to protest whether in comments, e-mailing the station/TV personality or boycotting their sponsors.
All this loftiness with regard to damage being done in the political atmosphere if it goes unchallenged, is a load of baloney.
Is it “loftiness”? I don’t know but I myself have always believed that if I keep silent I am giving my approval to such statements. Since I don’t agree I will not keep silent and will speak in what ever form allowed.
Pearlene,
Your comments make much sense, perhaps I was over generalizing. But I was basically reacting to Nomobush, or Sue, or whoever she is, saying that it does damage if gone unchallenged.
But you as a concerned citizen and voter have every right to voice your displeasure towards Fox or anyone. I admire people who get that involved, most of us just complain and do nothing.
I respect your actions and your opinions, thank you.
Dishonest nonsense left unchallenged, without a doubt, does damage.
There was a lot of dishonest nonsense in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Had the President and his staff not been allowed to get away with it unchallenged, maybe we wouldn't have invaded.
There was a lot of nonsense about John Kerry. Maybe if that had been challenged, we wouldn't be having to worry about Bush for the last 3 years.
There was a lot of nonsense about Bush over the years. He and his staff and his programs and policies have not been accurately portrayed. Maybe if they had been, we would not have so many deluded voters.
I think that knowledge is power, and I want all people to be as knowledgeable as possible, and that requires that MMfA and other sources tell us the truth and debunk the liars.
Your delusions get the best of you way too often, Tommy.
I don't think any of this information is here to entertain the posters. I do think that some posters use this site as their entertainment, but that doesn't mean that's what it's here for. I'd say that the posters who have reflexive reactions to any post about Keith Olbermann, for example, are here to entertain themselves and give themselves the opportunity to snipe at KO without really contributing much to the discussion.
The fact that some posters entertain themselves by commenting on the info here doesn't mean that the info is here to provide them entertainment. If they do that, then the flaw is with the posters, not with MMfA or their mission. You try to turn that around, and lay the blame where it doesn't belong.
"Is it “loftiness”? I don’t know but I myself have always believed that if I keep silent I am giving my approval to such statements. Since I don’t agree I will not keep silent and will speak in what ever form allowed."--pearlene
Great point, Pearlene. I admit I really do enjoy your insight and agree wholeheartedly. It reminds me of an old quote I will do my best to paraphrase:
All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing.
All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing.
So true so true!
THANKS PEARL !!
I wish I had said all that. You've saved me the time and effort.
THANKS WORRIER !! I liked your post too.
Media Matter gets a thanks from me too for exposing all the lies delivered to a huge number of unknowing listeners. The results of learning who the liars are is really happening.
Today most folks I know and new people I meet are aware of the lies broadcasted from Fox News and other such Outlets.
See Ya Later - Sam I Am
I disagree Tommy...
I think discourse has improved considerably since MMFA came on the scene. There's no doubt in my mind.
Just my opinion....God Bless Media Matters for America.
Coming from someone who just called me a bozo with pathetic crap who should be banned from this website, yours is a pretty curious opinion on the improved discourse.
Whoo boy...now that's funny...I don't care who you are.
But you have also nailed the issue...a lot if not most of the talk on the airwaves and websites is just that kind of blather...unthinking...but soothing for their souls.
Well put Wes,
Gibson spews his stuff for attention/ratings/relevance/whaaaaaatever.
MMFA highlights it, people say it's to combat the lies and restore the damage done - when in actuality, it's so the posters, who can't stand Gibson, can lash back at him since he won't put them on his show - payback time. Any reasons beyond that, are for now, pipedreams.
Hell, even I admit to doing it on threads about O'Reilly and Morris. What they say irritates me so much that posting a little diatribe against them is good for my mood sometimes. Beyond that, what good does it do really?
I am not above admitting that.
Hey, Tommy, I'll throw you a bone, here. I LOVE IT when MMFA skewers these bastards. I've listened to Rush since the Clinton v. Bush campaign, and I've made myself hoarse screaming at the radio many times. Before MMFA, there was no central clearing house for all the lies being told by the Republican Parrots on talk radio and cable news. Now, at least, we get a little bit of satisfaction in knowing that somebody is calling them on their bullsh*t. When these cretins respond to MMFA, it shows that they are at least noticing the digs, and that gives me great pleasure.
On the other hand, I think there is a little more to it than that. Even though the discourse hasn't softened noticeably, I think more people now realize that these guys are lying through their teeth on a regular basis. Maybe, just maybe, they are finding it a little harder to get away with it now.
It's not a bone, you're being honest as you usually are.
Your comments are well stated, can't disagree.
Mission Statement Girls...
Now the Mission Statement Girls--Tommy and CaseySpring--have another talking point: Media Matters, by exposing the media filth, is actually increasing the level of bad discourse.
Why is it that right-wingers have such an amazing ability to delude themselves?
Tommy and Wesley talking about elevating the discourse? That is funny.
Now, I will give you that it does highlight how idiotic these talk show hosts words really are. But who didn't know that except for their hardcore listeners anyway?
NBC "didn't know" when they made Rush Limbaugh an election night analyst. Or when they put O'Reilly and Coulter on as regular guests of the Today show.
The NYTimes "didn't know" when they said Coulter's screed, Slander, was "well researched."
The local radio stations that carry Gibson "didn't know" when they signed him up.
The president "didn't know" when he invited ten of these "idiotic talk show hosts" to the White House for a private chat - twice.
The sponsors of these shows "didn't know" when they paid to put this garbage on the air.
The sad fact is that these "idiots" have been given more than a free pass by the traditional media - they have been invited in as respectable representatives of the right, largely because the "idiots" clean themselves up when they go mainstream, and no one keeps track of the invective, slander, misrepresentations, and outright lies they traffic in.
That is, until MMFA showed up.
Rush Limbaugh is my current favorite example of this trend. He has - for YEARS - been implying that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons. Then, when called on it, he says he didn't say anything of the sort. Well, the proof is now right here. Who are you gonna believe, Rush or your own lying ears?
More importantly, who are his advertisers, his station managers, his publishers, the people who have him on their own shows, gonna believe?
Your dismissal of MMFA's tracking of these people is far too facile. They have done enormous damage to our nation's conversation, and that damage needs to be documented, if only to curtail the access to the mainstream they all crave. They are part of the far right fringe, and that's where they belong.
Once again Tommy, you are questioning the motives of MMFA and the posters here, based on idle speculation. Tiresome and insulting.
First of all Fox gets DRUBBED in the ratings they are still dwarfed by network news so that is a non sequitur. Second, as you do so often you take US to task about out hostility without aknowleging that the rightwing STARTED it and was left alone to stew in their hatred and viciousness for YEARS before the left started fighting back. Perhaps its just that you LONG for the days when ONLY the right was attacking liberals and we ignored those attacks, I mean that worked out so well for the left. I dont care HOW acrimonious public discourse gets, I am not willing to cede to the rightwing the exclusive franchise on such mean spirited attacks. They want to continue at the same time they convince the left to tone it down and that sounds good to you. I so often see you pass right by hateful rhetoric displayed on a thread to take US to task for responding in kind. OK we all get that you WANT the rightwing to be the only hostile voices in the game, I hope you dont mind if dont take such obviously biased advice. I am NOT laying down and TAKING the abuse because YOU would like to see it play out that way.
Great Post Ellington...
Dirtbags like Gibson have tremendous influence--BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MICROPHONE.
That's what propaganda is all about: Owning the microphone.
In the future we will make war on everyone for 15 minutes.
Tommy,
This man (mouse) is an Anchor at a television station that calls itself a news channel. This channel insists it is a news station, and that it is "The most powerful name in news."
Isn't it important for us to know what this high-profile anchorman is spouting?
Cut and paste can save so much time:
Does anything of any positive nature, whatsoever, come from this pathetic buffon, Gibson, having multiple broadcast outlets at his disposal?
Tommy, one paranoid martyr at a time, please. Once Victory in the War on Gibson is achieved, we can commence Operation Strategic Hellcat Infidel Tommy.
That right-wing victim mentality takes a lot of time to accomodate.
Don't dish it if you can't eat it, Gibson. That is all.
So the last 6 years has NEVER happened after 9/11 and Jon Stewart is supposed to maintain his 9/12/01 stance while BushieCo fiddles and New Rome burns. Why won't these guys put ANYTHING into perspective regarding BushieCo? It makes them look foolish. The Daily Show points our the adminstration's hypocrisy, something other "news" outlets do little of, and this turns into a meme of "Bush sucks."
Great interpretation, and thanks again for bring up your cancer remarks. Watch your karmatic backs, Angry Rich and Stooge.
Well, John, you poor victim, you. If it is a war, then maybe if you ceased hostilities (i.e. saying stupid s***), then a counter offensive wouldn't be necessary.
"attacked me and 'Angry Rich' for an unfortunate turn of the phrase last week,"
John it seems you have a lot of "unfortunate turns of phrase"
Right before the protests at the Republican National Convention in New York, Gibson suggested to a guest (7/12/04) that anti-Bush activists were in league with terrorists: “Do you believe that their intention is to provide a smoke screen, a cover, while real terrorists slip around in the background and blow up something big?”
or
as when he shared his thoughts on gay adoption and marriage in a Fox web column (3/16/05): “Gays can’t have kids—other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains—so by definition they’re out of the marriage game.”
But we all know that you simply are a lazy bigoted old man.
Gibson acknowledges (Sunday Oklahoman, 7/24/05) that his blistering commentaries are not exactly the product of careful deliberation: “I bang these things out pretty quick. . . . Somebody somewhere looks at it, I can’t even tell you who, to make sure I’m not creating giant problems with it. Sometimes I’ve been told I’m dancing too close to the line. But I’ve never looked at the copy later and seen it changed.”
Some more of Gibson's greatest hits...
"By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"
"Meantime, got to admire the cojones of those Brit cops to go after him like that. All of this trumps any of my other complaints that the Brits weren't making the right noises about fighting terror. They like to go about things a bit more quietly than us. Not my style, but okay, fine — as long as they get the five [bullets] in the noggin of the right bomber boy. They do that and I'm fine."
The "five in the noggin" was delivered to Jean Charles de Menezes, a man now known to have been fully innocent. Gibson actually wrote a mealy-mouthed mea culpa on this one, but still tried to defend himself by asking why so many people assumed the police were wrong. He of course never bothered with why he so automatically assumed the victim was guilty.
Gibson can not possibly be as dumb as he sounds. (anyone with the name of Angry Rich is as dumb as he sounds)
To draw a comparison between how a person expressed himself after 9/11 and bashing Bush for this idiotic war is....well, idiotic. There's no logical connection...wait, I think I've stumbled upon the problem.
Gibson and logic don't mix.
Gibson can not possibly be as dumb as he sounds.
Um, I think you could be wrong. Gibson's also quite full of himself, isn't he? Pretty egotistical to run around saying they're out to get me!
I sense that Mr. Gibson has a new book in the works.
"The War on Gibson"
Jeesh, since when is posting your own words an "attack" on yourself? Can handle the heat, or the bringing to light the stupid things that you, and your "producer" say on air, don't say those things. I mean, it really is THAT simple.
I guess it's okay that Gibson lumped Stewart into the "Bush-hating" bucket. Obviously you never see Stewart satirize Hillary, or Orbama, or Edwards, or Pelosi, or Kennedy, or the media, or pop culture, or any of those other liberal bastions.
It seems the "War on Gibson" starts earlier and earlier every year. I wonder if the Romney boys are going to give up the good fight in their current sacrifice and service to our country and volunteer for this war?
Unfortunate turn of phrase? Like his tongue and brain slipped on a banana peel? He accidentally formed a phrase which came out as a viscious callous attack? Keep talking Gibson, you are your own worst advocate.
It seems like a pretty easy deduction that if George W. Bush's approval rating fell from 88% immediately after 9/11 to 28% today, that 60% of Americans are phony frauds who deserve mocking. Boy, what a stinking country is that. No wonder Angry Rich is so angry. He despises 60% of all Americans.
In a war of stupidity, I think we're out gunned.
Thanks Eweston...
You said a lot there in one short sentence!
It wasn't an "unfortunate turn of the phrase." It was a totally outrageous lied about John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth. Edwards didn't "whore out" his wife. His wife is an integral part of his campaign. There was a link on his campaign website to send a letter to "Elizabeth and John" before they ever announced that her cancer had returned but they were going to go ahead, as a family, with his campaign for President.
It wasn't just him playing some audio either. It was him having that audiotape ready to go in a staged and false display of outrage over something Jon Stewart said almost 6 years ago. It was the aide to Gibson saying that Stewart clearly is a phony because Stewart sounded sad when he described the personal impact 9/11 had on his life.
Gibson can try to minimize his responsibility for this, but it doesn't wash. He and his aide made some huge errors and some dishonest comments. MMfA would be remiss if they let them go unnoticed.
Anybody should be attacked for this kind of behavior. If the shoe were on the other foot, I can virtually guarantee that the right would not have let such disrespectful and dishonest comments go unchallenged.
A war on a meaningless squawking meathead needs a more descriptive title like The Bore War.
This is a publicity stunt by Gibson. Doesn't anyone else see it that way? His reference to Stuart was a non sequitor. It seems intentionally inflamatory and planned. His outrage now seems equally calculated, since I really don't believe he couldn't see MMFA posting his comments. My guess is that he hopes Stuart will run a segment on his comments so he can start a war and generate publicity.
Not that, if true, my theory makes him less of a jerk.
I think part of his recent attacks (Elizabeth Edwards & Jon Stewart) are for publicity. I heard somewhere that Gibson is trying to increase his stature at Fox. This would certainly be the way since Bill’s been fighting with Kos and MMFA ,Gibson probably thought that this stunt would give him more exposure. Having said all that I still find it hard to believe that Fox calls it’s self a “news” organization when they run it like a tabloid rag. And Gibson is much worse than a jerk, he’s an opportunistic bigoted untalented old man.
- This is a publicity stunt by Gibson. Doesn't anyone else see it that way? - funnymanpants
Yep, I see it the same way you do. When bloggers and cable show hosts start their whining about being attacked...it's all about their own fragile egos...of which I don't give a damn.
I'd like to see some of these fools interact on this site...
Don't we have enough already?
I don't think you will ever see one of these pundits interact on a level playing ground like one of these threads. These guys need the control of the mic.
In fairness, I do believe a couple bloggers like Cliff Kincaid and/or one of the Powerline guys has come by and posted a response or two. I will give them some kudos for that.
Exactly, publicity. And giving him any at all only rewards his antics more.
Yea, right, sure, because ignoring people like Rush for the first decade he was on the air worked so well for us.
I believe that the damage done to their credibility and the education provided by the publication of the information far outweighs any publicity they might receive. I also believe that the dedicated efforts that MMfA makes to expose this nonsense, even when it's small timers like Gibson or minor items about the big time liars, will pay off in the long run even if in the short run there's some additional promotion of the sleazeballs. There's almost always concurrent promotion of the truth and of MMfA. That's how I read about them a year or so ago, and that's why I started coming here when I got back to the states, because of dust-ups that happened where both MMfA and their targets got attention.
It can be fairly assumed, working for Fox "News" that Gibson would know a thing or two about being a whoring phony...at least that's my assessment.
If there really was a "war" on gibson, that would be a worthy cause for U.S. forces. I'd volunteer in a second.
All you why is this here crowd, I'll tell you exactly why this is here.
It's for us.
It's for the people to talk about, share information, exchange thoughts even rage if the mood takes us.
It's here to let these media fools know they trick nobody and to let them witness their steady decline as control of the message slips from their grip.
Information has been democratized by the internet. The power of the Fourth Estate has been transferred to where it rightfully belonged all along.
Right here with all of us.
Just like every other bully most right wing gas bags have been complaining lately about being attacked by somebody or other. Savage is even complaining about the "illegals/islamists" wanting to kill him.
I don't know, maybe Roger Ailles sent a memo around and this is the new dittohead strategy going into 2008.
One more note - because something about this really sticks in my craw:
When Markos at DailyKos says something about distinguishing between the soldiers in Iraq and the contractor/mercenaries who have died - something way overboard ("screw them") that he apologizes for later - Sean Hannity picks it up and pounds it to death as an example of how Kos wants America to lose in Iraq.
When Gibson's producer calls Edwards a pimp, however, and then doesn't apologize for it (at least, not above), that's "an unfortunate turn of a phrase."
See how it works?
Anyway, I'm not following Gibson's logic.
Does he really believe Stewart couldn't have a genuine emotional response to 9/11 because he doesn't agree with the politics of George W. Bush?
That sounds like another version of "If you don't support the policies of this President (Bush) you're unAmerican and support the enemies of America."
This is the illogical passed off as logical by a purely partisan talking head.
By now most people realize that talkradio is full of all kinds of ugly and moronic commentary. Both sides of the political divide use profane and ugly rhetoric to generate ratings and gin up phony controversies.
Remeber Mike Malloy on Air America talking about Laura Bush?
>>>"A murderer herself. Somebody getting killed, one of her former boyfriends, in a drunken stupor, being behind the wheel of a car ... So here's Laura Bush, another killer. This Bush family. In order to get in the Bush family, it's like the way it used to be in order to get into certain gangs in Chicago. You had to kill somebody. And once you killed somebody, you're part of the gang. Well, Laura, Laura Bush is apparently that way. She murdered somebody in a car wreck, so she's in the gang. She's part of the gang." <<<
Finding offensive commentary on talkradio is a pretty easy - but ultimately a pointless task.
Except that your cherry=picked partial transcript is, I believe, at least a couple of years old, and there are fresh examples here everyday.
Sort of debunks the "both sides do it equally" theme you're working there, John.
By now most people realize that talkradio is full of all kinds of ugly and moronic commentary. Both sides of the political divide use profane and ugly rhetoric to generate ratings and gin up phony controversies.
Talkradio, in general, is run by and for those on the right. That portion of it is full of ugly and moronic commentary.
There are a few people on talkradio who are on the other side of the fence, and for the most part they are not moronic or ugly. Occasionally they are.
The fact that you can't discern between very occasional vitriol and almost constant vitriol, and you can't understand the damage that the almost constant variety can do is pitiful.
It's not enough to have a war on Gibson. We have to WIN the war on Gibson.
I'm just grateful for Media Matters - and how scared the bullies on the right are now.
I don't watch Fux - and don't have to when MMFA and others are watching it for me (makes sure my curiosity doesn't make a dent in their audience numbers). To paraphrase Hilary We're hitting a nerve and pressure from the sane in our country will continue.
Murdoch and Fux are a disgrace on the planet. Thanks again for keeping them paranoid!
Angry Rich, why are you so angry? Please tell us and we will help you. Is it your job of bowing to the gibson? Do you want us to know your name but gibby won't allow it? Does you mommy think you should be the star? Write to us please.
P.S. On Wednesday evening, John Stewart referred to Gibson as some IDIOT when a brief mention of gibbys' comment arose.. I think Gibbo should confront Stewart and demand an apology. Now that is FUNNY.
I post here upon occasion and it amuses me to see the length that some of the anti-MMFA posters here go to, to show that none of this matters, and makes no difference.
Since MMFA's existence and the "dishonesty that's being challenged" here, has the discourse improved or gotten worse, in your opinion? I would guess it's worse.
Your view is it’s worse, I would suggest it has gotten more noticeable because before no one was actually pointing the BS so it just slipped past unchallenged.
As to making no difference, if MMFA were not making a difference then BillO , Gibby, Lush, Slanthead and the rest of the Right Wing Piss Bucket carriers for the Right Wing Sound Machine would simply ignore it as if it didn’t exist, but over the last couple of years the attacks against MMFA and other left leaning web sites has gotten more common and increasingly shrill. The best publicity MMFA gets is from the whining these shills do about how MMFA is posting their words and it’s just not fair.
Yes, poor things for years they were allowed to say anything and no one actually questioned the “truthiness” of their statements, and along comes MMFA which simply takes their own word verbatim along with the unedited clip of them saying it and holds it up to the light of day for accuracy.
Tommy asserts - MMFA highlights it, people say it's to combat the lies and restore the damage done - when in actuality, it's so the posters, who can't stand Gibson, can lash back at him since he won't put them on his show - payback time.
It’s not a matter of not standing anyone it’s MMFA is a somewhere I can go find the researched facts about a bit of propaganda that may not pass my “truthiness” test.
Do I enjoy seeing these guys skewered upon occasion? You Bet! But that is certainly not my only reason for coming here, and as I only rarely post here (MMFA still has to “approve” my post) it’s certainly not just to lash out.The only thing missing from the 'war on Gibson' is a weapon to get rid of him for once and for all. Maybe even one that would take all the rest of the nut jobs on Faux Opinion Channel, including of course, Roger Aliment with him.
It's so unfair of this liberal website to print John Gibson's words verbatim! As Stephen Colbert has said, facts have a liberal bias, so it goes without saying if you print facts that you're some kind of liberal "truth zombie" unable to differentiate facts from truth! Thankfully, Mr Gibson doesn't subscribe to the reality-based community anymore than Bush does!
"Hey, I'm a celebrity. They hate me. I love it." Yup, you made it, you nutcase dyssocial. But remember this, the propagandists went on trial along with the generals at Nuremburg.
Hi all, my name is Tommy and I'm an annoy-a-holic.
It all started when i got the overwhelming urge one day to visit a site called Media Matters For America (MMFA). I don't know why i went there - i was magically drawn. Once i was on i could never get off....I've been wandering around the site for some time now, compulsively questioning why this organisation does what it does. I have no real interest in the substance of any of the stories, but i can't help myself - i just keep posting questions like "why is this here?" "what good does that do?" and other pleas for intellectual hand-holding. I have taken the first step and admitted that i have a problem, won't someone please help me to take the second step and seek help.
I have no problem with MMFA keeping a record of the ping pong game the far right plays with itself with misinformation and outright lies.