Fox's Gibson accused Jon Stewart of "purposeful misunderstanding" over being mocked

Do I feel stoopid. I read along, waiting for an explanation of what that "purposeful misunderstanding" was, and found out that Stewart correctly and precisely analyzed what Gibson said, and the intent behind it.

Hate, angry self-hate, and hate juiced up in hate-talk, is an adrenal high, a drug, a wicked amphetamine.

An addict like Gibson gets gonzo, more and more, requiring an ever larger dose for his high and 'rush' and effect.  He'd be easy enough to cure:  put him doing farm work, around livestock, grateful for the food upon his table.

The crime which should imprison him is in his guilt for hooking viewers on his sick addiction.

Won't these idiots ever stop? Morgan, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Gibson all keep repeating the same garbage no matter how many times they're corrected.

No, Gibby the point isn't that Stewart thinks he's some kind of sacred cow who can't be criticized.

The point is you're conflating a genuine emotional response to 9/11 with supporting the policies of George W. Bush.

One has nothing to do with the other.

When are you going to get that?

Jon Stewart must be an untouchable. 

Gibson: "He [Stewart] thinks they're almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument."

Huh? Apparently Gibson doesn't not watch TDS much at all. Stewart can definitely take as good as he gives. And he engages in argument all the time with guests from the opposite idealogical viewpoint. Stewart is far more fair and balanced than Gibson could ever hope to be.

The problem isn't that Gibson wants to jab an elbow at Stewart. The problem is that Gibson and his angry sidekick picked something really bizarre to jab Stewart on...his personal, deeply felt thoughts about what happened on 9/11. To pick that item to go after Stewart on was a really weak choice on Gibson's part.

And then to top if off, Gibson's bit wasn't even funny! Has anyone else noticed that Gibson thinks he's hilarious when he's actually more along the lines of cringe inducing creepiness? Most of the time I end up shaking my head in disbelief because his idea of funny is mostly just pitiful. He yells, he plays sound effects, he makes bad jokes, etc. Perhaps Gibson should leave the comedy to the pros like Stewart and Colbert...you know, the ones with actual comedic talent and clever political insights?

If Stewart deserves criticism, then by all means criticize him, Gibson.

He deserved no criticism for his statement made days after 9/11. He was not a phony for having real feelings about the losses NYC and the USA faced after 9/11, and in that statement, he talked about how America was still strong and even more united by those tragic events.

If he does something that deserves contempt, then hold him in contempt. The audiotape that you played was not an example of him deserving contempt, however.

You were wrong. Be a big boy and admit it.

Gibson says this:

He's a -- he's a comedian doing the news. He should expect some shots once in a while. I want to know, where is the Jon Stewart that was so grief-stricken, and why does he think what I think are reasonable measures to fight the war on terror like wiretapping, like going after Iraq, like Guantánamo Bay -- I think those are reasonable measures. He thinks they're absurd. He thinks they're almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument. And I guess he's come to think, and a lot of other people have come to think, that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then. And I'm sorry he thinks that way 'cause I think he's funny and I like him and I think he's one of the most dangerous guys on TV. He certainly was when I was there. Gibson on Fox.

The difference is making fun of griefregarding 9/11 is not funny.  And since when is being critical of Bush equal to not being sad or hurt over what happened on 9/11?

GIBSON: I didn't expect to come up in this conversation, but there I was right at the end.

Does anyone else think it's funny that when Jon Stewart said the word "idiot," Gibson automatically knew to whom he was referring?

So, let's see if I have this right: Anyone who was upset by the events on 9/11 must support everything Bush has done since that day or they are a phony? The real world must be a very confusing place for Gibson.

It's always a strawman argument with these jerkoffs.

If anyone is being purposeful it is Gibson, who desperately wants someone...anyone to care about what he thinks. He's like an abused child who craves attention even if its from a fist.

"Kneejerk"

Gibson thinks Jon should be "subject to an elbow."

I think Gibson should be subject to a knee.

He's too old to have more kids anyway.

Wow. John Gibson confirmed exactly what Jon Stewart said. He's against all these things Bush is doing (which are "reasonable" according to him), so therefore his grief wasn't real.

a lot of other people have come to think, that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then.

Hmmm...so Gibson goes around elbowing cows? You'd think he'd learn, they don't really respond to being nudged.

Thanks for confirming Jon Stewart's opinion of you, Gibby.

So he mocks him and insults him, and then attacks him for getting offended?

Nice.

If it were not for FOX , where would Gibson work and what would he be doing?

He thinks they're almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument.

Is my memory failing, or did this come up during an interview Stewart was doing with a guy who wrote a laudatory biography of "The Big" Dick Cheney?

Didn't Stewart have John Bolton on not so long ago?

Won't engage in argument? 

It sounds like this isn't Gibsons article, but I still would like to respond to what he said: 

STEWART: Well, no -- the difference there is, we're not calling them traitors.

GIBSON: Yeah, you are. 

I don't think that I've ever heard Stewart call anyone a traitor.  Unless contradictions are traitorous.  Stewart is all about playing before and after video.  You know the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words", Wordy McWordalot. ;)

Oh, and a contradiction isn't a debate either, but I'll get into that later.

So I suppose that you believe that mocking greif doesn't make you a "jerk"?  My mother taught me better than that, didn't yours?  You know, the 'golden rule' and all?

Would that standard be the same if the positions were reversed? 

I want to know, where is the Jon Stewart that was so grief-stricken, and why does he think what I think are reasonable measures to fight the war on terror like wiretapping, like going after Iraq, like Guantánamo Bay -- I think those are reasonable measures. He thinks they're absurd.

As is his right.

But what does his belief that the Federal Government needs to be limited, have to do with him exaggerating grief?  You are trying to excuse acting like a jerk by comparing apples and oranges.

You have the right to act like a jerk, but don't pretend like 'he asked for it' by questioning the president and his methods.

To say that the liberal side hasn't called people traitors is absurd. It certainly has. Bloggers

1) To hold Stewart responsible for every blogger is to attribute to him a power he might wish to have, but does not.

2) Additionally, it's one thing for a 14 year old, snot nose blogger to call you a traitor.  It's entirely something different when it comes out of the Federal Government...  Say in the form of a letter from the Department of Justice.  To compare the two is beyond rediculous.

he thinks he's right

 Of course he thinks he's right.  Who do you know that thinks their wrong?

without having to engage in an argument.

I hope you mean debate.

Mockery is not debate.

Argument, on the other hand, is useless, pointless, yelling, name calling and mockery.

Debate is an exchange of ideas comparing and contrasting them, sometimes resulting in one or both parties changing their minds.

Argument rarely ends in either party changing their mind.

that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then.

Mocking grief is not an 'elbow now and then'. 

I think he's one of the most dangerous guys on TV.

Wow.

It's a good thing he doesn't peddle words like 'FemiNazi' then, if he so powerful and dangerous he could stir up a lot of hate.

Umn... Wait... Dangerous to who?

I find it telling that Stewart talks about people in "very high-level positions" questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with the Bush administration, while Gibson tries to rebut this by talking about no-name liberal bloggers.

There was a conservative tide in this country that kept rising as a backlash to the new deal, unions, civil rights, peace protests - you know, freedom and it's crazed supporters.

As the middle and working classes decided the fight was over and the important battles had been won, apathy broke out and grew as the conservative tide kept rising.

 When Bush was appointed in 2000, the tide crested and remained high for four years - but it was already starting to turn and (cheerfully mixing my metaphors here) the Republican ship hit the shoals and began to break up.  All the tiny rat brains on board quivered with fear and started heading for the exits.  The parade of WH officials starting to flee is being swelled by congressmen (three rethugs have announced their retirement this week).  The rats who have no place else to go are starting to panic - we can expect even more viciousness as the panic increases and they get more desperate.  I think it's funny as hell - but don't kid yourself; we haven't won and the real war is just beginning.

Our country has been stolen from us while we slept - we will have to fight to take it back.  

Stewart is a giant; Gibson is a pathetic little pipsqueak, unfit to clean Jon's chamberpot.

Even when the tide has turned, it isn't immediately apparent.  When the ship starts sinking it isn't either, necessarily.  The rats seem to know though.

What didn't he get? That you're an a-hole Gibson? Oh no, wait, he's got that part down pat. I only wish that the rest of our so called journalists would be as good as Stewart is. But I dare to dream.

Oh sure, the unprovoked personal attack on his character and personal honor was "just a joke" that Jon "purposefully misunderstood".  What a kidder, that Gibson, too bad Jon doesn't have a sense of humor.

That's what these jerks ALWAYS say when they rightfully get called out on (another) outrageous personal attack- "it was just a joke, jeeeeeeze" and proceed to act like they're the victim.  Imus and his nappy headed hoes, Coulter and her Edwards is a f*g, Rushbo and his Michael J. Fox is faking it, pick a feature.

That's what bullies always do when confronted- "I didn't meeeeeen it...." and blame the victim for "misunderstanding".

This guy just proves what a jerk he really is every time he opens his mouth.

He... really thinks Iraq was a natural and rational reaction to 9/11? Is he stupid or lying?

wow and this is a grown man that was so childish i would be ashamed if i behaved like that 

As others have pointed out, Gibson is dead wrong when he says Stuart "thinks they're [arguments about wiretapping, Iraq, and Guantanamo]  almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument."

Jon regularly has conservative guests on the show, and engages these guests exactly about these issues. Many of Jon's fans complain that Jon treats these guests with too much respect and allows them to air their views unchallenged. Jon often says to his guests something like "I really think the Iraq war was ill thought out. Show me where I am wrong."

As another note, I don't see how Gibson can make the ridiculous claim that going into Iraq is "reasonable."  

Here's the scene: You're in a bar. Couple of drunks yakking away next to you. What do you do? Move to another part of the bar? Do you tell them to just "shut the f..k up"? Or do you just ignore them? Whatever you decide, you are not going to change anything. Boors are boors and proud of it. Hey, they gittin' paid, right? Anyone who says that "wiretapping, going after Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay - I think are reasonable measures" is certainly not aware of 70% of the American people who completely disagree . They are also unaware of the virtual mountains of evidence that all of these "measures" are just plain wrong. No wonder they think Jon Stewart is "one of the most dangerous guys on TV". He IS.

Lets see here: A "Journalist" slanders a comedian, saying the comedian is fakes sympathetic emotions over a mega-tragedy in the comedian's home town. The "journalist" then defends his comments, saying the comedian can't take a joke.

Reality has truely been set on its head.

Jon Stewart thinks the war has been fought wrong. That's not what he thinks, you fateuous gasbag. That's what Ken Pollack and his ilk think - that the war was a good idea but badly executed. Enough of trying to paint the anti-war sentiment with this false lable of "thinking the war has been fought wrong."The reality is, we think it shouldn't have been fought at all. And all the evidence is showing that we are right.

Please, people; cut Gibson some slack. He is just trying to stay in front of the camera (much like Paris Hilton).

My suggestion, which I have emailed John Gibson care of FOX news, is to have the props department make up a small hand-puppet that can represent Angry Rich. John can then hold up the puppet and have an on-screen dialog.

I bet John Stewart can't do that!!

Please, people; cut Gibson some slack. He is just trying to stay in front of the camera (much like Paris Hilton).

Okay, I thought about the implications of that statement for a second and it made me throw up a little. 

Gibson is desperate for attention. 

He just realized that the Limbaugh media days are grinding to an end, and he never made it to the A-list.  The Limbaugh style hatred was being build during the Reagan-Bush I era. It hit it's apex during the Clinton administration, and now the Bush II administration is the actualization of everything Reagan envisioned.  There is nowhere to go from here, and Gibson never made it to the big time.

And really, how could he.  The rightwingers have gone from fat white men to trampy women in miniskirts (or cheerleader costumes).  So in a desperate effort to get an audience, he launched a hysterical attack against Jon Stewart.  Pitiful.

There is a BIG difference between giving someone a little ribbing, and mocking their grief after 9/11.

Gibson was a jerk, Stewart appropriately pointed it out, and he [G] should have apologized.  What is so complicated about that?  Apparently he [G] thinks "making things worse" is a reasonable response.  well, it's not reasonable and you should be ashamed of yourself [G].  You're not in grade school.

Newbie here - Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'purposeful misunderstanding ' an oxymoron?

Of course, that's kinda what you'd have to expect from a bullheaded moron...

As much as Gibson, true to his rightwing character, would like to deny reality and deny responsibility for his actions, it really boils down to 2 things.

 1) Rightwingers find a lot of humor in people's pain (just as they did in the suffering in New Orleans, the suffering in Iraq, the suffering at Abu Ghraib, the suffering of the 9/11 widows, the suffering of Cindy Sheehan, etc). They just usually aren't so goddamn stupid as to let their immature jokes over people crying after 9/11 get broadcast over the air waves. There's not a spits worth of difference between Gibson and Bush and Cheney and Limbaugh. They all have the maturity and wisdom of Beavis and Butthead.

2) It's a matter of accountability to acknowledge he was wrong. It goes against everything the GOP stands for to ever admit they're wrong, which is why, even after losing the war in Iraq, they will demand troops continue to get thrown into the fire and die in vain rather than accept responsibility for their incompetence and stupidity. "Honor" and "Courage" are two words that will never be a word associated with Republicans. 

Gibson undercut his FAUX attempt at saying liberals don't understand comedy when he laundry-listed unconstitutional ways of fighting terrorism.

That makes it clear that if you don't agree with Gibson's views you can't really be in grief, since all "real" Americans would agree with them. 

Of course who could forget boosh mugging and ridiculing Karla Faye Tucker trying to prevent being executed, because she had apparently been "born again."?