Fox News' E.D. Hill addresses her "terrorist fist jab" comment
On the June 10 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill addressed her June 6 comments in which she teased an upcoming segment about Sen. Barack and Michelle Obama's on-stage "fist bump" by saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse:
HILL: Want to start the show by clarifying something I said on the show last Friday about an upcoming body language segment. Now, I mentioned various ways the Obamas' fist pump in St. Paul had been characterized in the media. I apologize because unfortunately, some thought I personally had characterized it inappropriately. I regret that. It was not my intention. And I certainly didn't mean to associate the word "terrorist" in any way to Senator Obama and his wife. Now, today, the senator is talking about the economy.
People associate 'fearer-ist' and 'furor-ist' with FUXNews and her but she's only a shaming disgrace to her family and now a pariah avoided by former acquaintances denying it.
By the way, some pertinent zingy (anti-McWane) campaign video, expressly outranking FUXNews, is here: YouTube.COM/watch?v=wTitf2gjMmk
Much easier on the nerves, to watch it, than getting hate infected ulcers watching FUX liar bimbo.
“America’s Pulse anchored by E.D. Hill goes away, but Hill stays with the network in a capacity to be determined.”
The bathrooms at Faux News headquarters just got a new cleaning person.....
A non-apology apology. Typical.
What part of "I apologize" are you having trouble with?
C'mon ...
Well, how about this?
because unfortunately, some thought I personally had characterized it inappropriately.
and the implication that it wasn't her fault, but the fault of the people who heard her slander and were rightly outraged. In other words--and I'm typing this reeeeeeaaaal sllllooow so you can understand this--she's not apologizing about herself, but about other people. She didn't do anything worng, the people who suposedly misunderstood her did...
Don't expect Shoes to understand that deep concept.
I don't expect Shoes to understand anything. And she never fails to disappoint....
That's why she is B.O.R.I.N.G. Yawn.
At least some of the other cons here aren't that obtuse. Still wrong nevertheless. :)
She lied during that pathetic excuse of an "apology".
Who in the media, besides Faux, characterized Obama’s fist bump as a “terrorist jab”??? Find ONE!
I too am puzzled. She did say "I mentioned various ways the Obamas' fist pump in St. Paul had been characterized in the media." Were it true that someplace in the media, someone characterized it as a terrorist fist jab, i would expect that the source would be made available. It would not surprise me to have Fox claim that some comment on some obscure website qualifies as the media. Worse, it would not surprise me that she or Fox placed such a comment on a site so they could qoute it. This is reminiscent of the occasion when the White House planted the story of Iraq weapons in the NY Times i think it was and then pointed to the newspaper as the authority. It would be useful to chase this alleged quote down, to demand Fox reveal the media source and then to verify its authenticity.
Here's what I said on the first thread. It was clear to me and everyone else who saw the show who has a thinking brain that it was a smear of Obama, and that's why Media Matters covered it.
"The only reason to suggest that it might be a "terrorist fist jab" is as a smear. Note that the Fox host ended that suggestion with a question mark. That's the ever-present excuse that Fox News uses to try to evade responsibility for smears like this. They plant the seed with their viewers and that's all they're trying to do. Even though there's no reason to suggest it's anything like what terrorists do, let's do it anyway."
So, not only did E D Hill try to evade responsibility for it when she said it, but now she's trying to evade responsibility again for having said it by saying that it was misinterpreted. It wasn't misinterpreted. She got caught. She never gave a single example of anyone saying it was a terrorist fist jab besides herself, and the body language expert she interviewed didn't back up her story at all!
Would this be an apology, Shoes:
I apologize that you are too naive to understand that I am not apologizing.
What part of "I apologize" wouldn't you not understand there ;)?
Would this be an apology, Shoes:
I apologize that you are too naive to understand that I am not apologizing.
What part of "I apologize" wouldn't you not understand there ;)?
Actually, this might help Shoes:
The "I apologize" part did not create any problem - it was what E.D. Hill said BEFORE the word "I" and AFTER the word "apologize" that conditioned her apology enough to make it a non-apology.
Kapish??
Hill -- "...I apologize because unfortunately, some thought I personally had characterized it inappropriately. I regret that. It was not my intention..."
Shorter version:
Hill: Why are YOU so thin skinned?
Hill clearly puts the onus for the problem on the viewers who objected to what she said, not on herself. "I'm sorry I did that" means the speaker takes responsibility. "I'm sorry if you were offended" means the speaker doesn't think he or she did anything wrong and blames the listener or viewer.
"I mentioned various ways the Obamas' fist pump in St. Paul had been characterized in the media."
What figures in the media (other than E.D. Hill) characterized the fist-bump as a "terrorist jab"?
" I apologize because unfortunately, some thought I personally had characterized it inappropriately. I regret that."
She's apologizing what what "some thought," not for what she actually said. Pretty weak.
I agree . My point is I DID NOT EXPECT HER TO EVEN DISCUSS IT.
The point is it is not better than nothing.
The point is that it's not an apology.
The point is that she was the one suggesting it, and again Fox News is trying to get away with the "there was a question mark at the end of the phrase, so we weren't saying it. We were only saying that some people might be saying it. Never mind that I never brought up a single instance of someone describing it that way besides myself. Those are details that are unimportant."
Giving her any credit for this non-apology is wrong. I totally expected her to say something like this to pretend that she was sorry she had said it. That non-apology compounds the error. It does not mitigate it in the least.
Sue/Ellie
Be quiet, because she gets no credit from me. Of course you love to twist things with your vile hateful statements.
No, it's you who is twisting things and then pulling out the personal attacks. Multiple people said the same thing that I did - that it's not an apology, and it's not okay, and in fact it is a step backwards not a step forwards to hear this 'apology'.
Don't you see what others must think of you when you act so desperately?
Of course it is not an apology, and I posted she should be fired.
Yet you start with your smart remarks to insight the board.
Give it up Nomobush.
No, what you posted was
It is better than nothing.
An apology that's not really an apology is not "better than nothing". A false apology is hypocritical. Failing to be sorry for what you did and admitting that you're not sorry for it is better than failing to be sorry for what you did and making a fake apology to make it appear like you are sorry.
It's not better than nothing. I would not be surprised if it was part of their plan. They wanted to appear to be contrite that they put that meme into their viewers' minds, but they aren't sorry at all. Her saying this fake apology is not progress. You said it was. You later said your point was that you didn't think she'd say anything. That clearly implies again that although you don't think this 'apology' was sufficient, you think it is some measure of contrition. I don't, and the all the evidence is on my side.
A fake apology is not a good thing. Pretending you're sorry and saying you're sorry for the false impressions what you said left with others is not progress.
How do you reconcile
...she gets no credit from me.
- JLyons / Wednesday June 11, 2008 11:09:21 AM EDTWith your comment that it's better than nothing?
How can you say that you are giving her no credit for what she says if you are saying that her commentary is better than nothing. How can you improve, move her in a positive direction, be better than nothing, if you don't give her some credit?
Either you're giving her some credit, or it's not better than nothing.
I think it's actually a negative. I think her dishonest non-apology was intentional. She did not give a non-apology accidentally. She didn't fail to apologize for the implications of what she said, and I don't think it was an accident that she failed to do that. That behavior is a negative, and compounds the error she had already made.
So you do not think she should be fired?
It is ok to make these statements?
How can you say she should not be fired?
Are you an ED Hill apologist just like you are an MSNBC apologist?
How can you say these things?
So you do not think she should be fired?
When exactly did I say she should not be fired, or lead you to believe I felt that way? What exactly was it that I said that led you to that mistaken impression? I think many people at Fox News have violated the public trust by misleading their viewers, including serial offender E D Hill. I think she should be called to account for what she did. I don't think that firing her and hiring someone who will do the same things that she has done will help much, so until we change the culture at Fox News, it doesn't do too much good to fire anyone. But, if their viewers lost commentators they have trusted due to their errors like this one, it could be a good thing. So yeah, I guess I agree with firing her.
It is ok to make these statements?
Again, what exactly did I say on this thread or the previous thread that leads you to the mistaken impression that I think it's okay to say these things? And don't even try the old standard "I never said you though it wa okay." The only reason to say "It is okay to make these statements" to me is because you are implying that you think that I think it's okay. So, what did I say that led you to that mistaken impression? I said clearly that her statement was a smear. I even copied my previous comments from the first posting onto this one. There should be no doubt about my feelings about her comment.
How can you say she should not be fired?
I also never made any comments about whether or not she should be fired. I was arguing that your comment that said it was better than nothing was wrong! How can you get it so wrong? How can you misinterpret so completely what I said?
Are you an ED Hill apologist just like you are an MSNBC apologist?
How can you misinterpret so completely what I said? I am the one who said it was a smear. I am the one who said that her non-apology was not better than nothing, remember? You're the one who gave her some credit for saying something. I gave her demerits for her non-apology. I said that her original comment was not a simple mistake nor simply her mentioning of what someone else had described it as, but I said it was a smear. How can you get that so completely wrong to twist what I have said into me being an apologist for her? I have yet to twist a single thing you have said, you have twisted everything I've said, and you want to call me the twisted one who is making vile and baseless attacks?
How can you say these things?
Exactly. Look in the mirror. How can you say these things?
Here's my post from the first posting on this subject.
It's a smear against Obama. That's why they did it.
All he and his wife are doing is a modified high five. It's a "go get-em" kinda touch showing solidarity between the spouses.
Why would we need a body language expert to explain this to us? And the funny thing is, the 'expert' says that all we should do is ask Obama why he's doing this, and we'll know why he's doing this. She gives no malavolent meaning to this move whatsoever.
The only reason to suggest that it might be a "terrorist fist jab" is as a smear. Note that the Fox host ended that suggestion with a question mark. That's the ever-present excuse that Fox News uses to try to evade responsibility for smears like this. They plant the seed with their viewers and that's all they're trying to do. Even though there's no reason to suggest it's anything like what terrorists do, let's do it anyway.
How many times have YOU seen two terrorists touching their knuckles together like this? It happens so often that Fox News didn't have a single example captured on tape to show us! (Sarcasm off)
I even copied some of this onto this thread. There is no way anyone could fairly interpret anything I've said to believe that I am a Fox News supporter or an E D Hill supporter. My saying that her comment is not better than nothing is not a supportive comment. My saying that I expected her to say something like this to pretend that she was sorry is not supportive either. Nothing I've said can be fairly interpreted in the way you did. The flaw lies with you.
Ellie
The flaw lies with you , you are attempting to fight with me on this issue. When in fact you do not want to talk about the issue, but pick fights.
Grow up.
No, it would be you who wants to fight with me. I debunked what you said. It had nothing to do with who said it. It had to do with it not being true that her non-apology was 'better than nothing." Her non-apology was worse than if she had not said anything at all in my opinion, so I said that.
Several posters said the same thing that I did, but you only had an issue with me. That tells everyone reading this that it was you who was picking a fight with me, and not the other way around.
Anyone who had said "it was better than nothing" would have gotten the same response from me.
And I did discuss the issue. I posted a very clear response to it the first day this came out, and I posted again on this thread.
You got caught saying something stupid. Look in the mirror if you want to see who began the fight between us, because it's you who did so. I made the same point that other posters did, but you did not harass them like you've harassed me here.
No, it would be you who wants to fight with me. I debunked what you said. It had nothing to do with who said it. It had to do with it not being true that her non-apology was 'better than nothing." Her non-apology was worse than if she had not said anything at all in my opinion, so I said that.
Of course that is correct except you want to fight with me. It was me who said i want her fired and made fun of her "apology", yet again you want to play games.
Several posters said the same thing that I did, but you only had an issue with me. That tells everyone reading this that it was you who was picking a fight with me, and not the other way around.
The other posters knew what i said after rereading it and understanding i was being sarcastic, yet you ignored my other statments in your sick attempt to claim i am defending that ding bat ed hill. That is the same game you played in your other sockpuppet names
Anyone who had said "it was better than nothing" would have gotten the same response from me.
Sure , so in your world no one is allowed to joke . You are disgusting.
And I did discuss the issue. I posted a very clear response to it the first day this came out, and I posted again on this thread.
Frankly no one cares what you say because you have been exposed as a sockpuppet
You got caught saying something stupid. Look in the mirror if you want to see who began the fight between us, because it's you who did so. I made the same point that other posters did, but you did not harass them like you've harassed me here.
Because you ignored my true point, that it was a joke of an apology and she should be fired. You really are pathetic
Again you lie. I said the same thing that others said, but you didn't attack them. You attacked me. That makes it clear that you were the one that began the fight.
You have no reason to say that other posters understood that you were being sarcastic, because there were no other posters that said anything like that. There is no evidence of that. The only evidence that you were being sarcastic is that you said you were. You didn't include any of the clues that you were being sarcastic nor did you say that you were for a full day or more. You tried to defend yourself from the thorough debunking I did. I've documented that.
You say "Sure, so in your world no one is allowed to joke. You are disgusting."
No, you are disgusting. You have no basis for saying I am unwilling to allow people to joke. As I said above, you gave no indication that you were kidding. If you look at all your posts, it makes no sense at all to try to claim that you were kidding, because you repeatedly made posts in a similar vein, but I have already said that if you were being sarcastic, that's great, because what you said made no sense otherwise. But if you were just kidding, why did you try to defend what you said for a full day BEFORE you said that you were kidding earlier? That makes no sense!
"Frankly no one cares what you say because you have been exposed as a sockpuppet."
Frankly no one cares what you say is more like it. I have not been exposed as a sockpuppet - that's one of your delusions. What you have been exposed as is someone who has multiple screennames posting at the same time. But regardless of that, people do care what I say. The last refuge of a scoundrel is what you're doing right here.
"Because you ignored my true point, that it was a joke of an apology and she should be fired. You really are pathetic."
I didn't ignore your "true point". I highlighted two of the many posts you made, both of which can still be true even if you do want her to be fired. I have explained this about 6 times now. If you haven't gotten that message, then it's all on you and your lack of comprehension. I didn't ignore your "true point". If you meant it kidding, in a sarcastic way, and you never indicated that until after a full day's worth of back and forth, then 100% of the blame falls at your feet for not making your sarcasm clear. To blame the reader for your shortcomings is really weak. You should continue to look in the mirror when you feel the need to make vile and baseless accusations like this. I copied your words and debunked them. You tried to deny your own words and concentrate on only one post you made that I was not even replying to. I was replying to a different post than your comment that talked about firing her. I think you didn't understand that, and even after you figured it out you were unwilling to admit your error. It was your error, not mine.
Here's what I already said about your attempt to claim you were kidding.
"If in fact you were not serious, that's great. It was a ridiculous assertion to say that she deserved any credit for what she did. It'd be great if you really didn't mean what you typed. If all your posting exhibited was misleading sarcasm unindentified as such, then my only complaint is that you failed to note that until now, and you roundly criticized me for debunking the argument you now say you weren't even making!
If you didn't really mean what those comments said, then why were you arguing with me before? Why not simply say "I was being sarcastic. Both comments were tongue in cheek."?"
So, why do you now try to claim that I will not allow people to joke and be sarcastic? You have no basis for saying that. It's just another personal attack from you.
Ellie/Sue
The only one doing personal attacks is you.
This is what I Said SUE/notthatgeorge
of course again you love to twist words. Discuss this statement of shut the f up. What i said earlier was in tounge and cheek and everyone knows it except people like you who want to play games.
Hill shouldbe fired. And apology should NEVER be accepted.
I copied your own statements. How can I be twisting your words when I copied your own words? The answer? I can't. That's the same argument that people like Bill O'Reilly use to call Media Matters a smear site. They copy his own words too, just like I did.
You said that it was better than nothing. You can think that it's better than nothing and still think she should be fired. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Her comment is not better than nothing in my view, and, as I said, I think it's actually worse than nothing.
You also said that you didn't expect her to say anything. The implication was that you again thought that thist comment was better than nothing, as you had earlier said. You said that was your point, in capital letters, even!
I was addressing those comments. I didn't twist your words at all. I used your own words.
And somehow you have a distorted definition of the word smear and somehow think that what I'm doing is a vile and baseless attack?
Look in the mirror. I disagreed with your assertion that what she did was better than nothing. So did several other posters on this posting from Media Matters. Own your own words. You said it. You did not simply say that she should be fired. Those two things are not mutually exclusive anyway.
What you said earlier was tongue in cheek?
Sure.
You said it was better than nothing, and you said that you never expected her to even say as much as she did, which implies you're giving her credit for saying something.
Then you added that you think she should be fired, and that her apology was insufficient.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. You could think that she should be fired, and the half-hearted attempt at a weasel's apology wasn't enough yet still give her some credit for trying.
All I've done is use your own words. You typed them. You own them.
You never, until right now, tried to claim that your original words were tongue in cheek. You have been posting here for some time, and you should have seen what when someone is being sarcastic, they either put a smiley face in, put in the words <sarcasm>, or they immediately explain that they weren't serious when they are called on it. You did none of those.
If in fact you were not serious, that's great. It was a ridiculous assertion to say that she deserved any credit for what she did. It'd be great if you really didn't mean what you typed. If all your posting exhibited was misleading sarcasm unindentified as such, then my only complaint is that you failed to note that until now, and you roundly criticized me for debunking the argument you now say you weren't even making!
If you didn't really mean what those comments said, then why were you arguing with me before? Why not simply say "I was being sarcastic. Both comments were tongue in cheek."?
Wow you are irrelevant. As I said grow up
When I say she should be fired, and you gotta love those FOXIES, you play games with my sarcasm.
You are an idiot.
You did not solely say she should be fired. You said she should be fired at 4:10 PM on Tuesday. You said that it was better than nothing at 2:47. At 2:51 you said that it was more than you expected. Beween 3 and 3:30 you twice said that you didn't even expect her to say what she said.
If you had only said you thought she should be fired, we would not be having this discussion, so you have no point in bringing it up. As I already explained, you could want her to be fired and still think that her non-apology was something. You could still want her to be fired and be surprised that she said anything at all.
The fact that you later said that you wanted her fired didn't change or contradict the things you earlier said. That's the point that you seemed to have missed entirely.
The issue is not whether or not we should all want her to be fired. The issue is the fact that she made this non-apology in response to the uproar raised over her comments. You want to bring up that you think she should be fired, be my guest. But you also said that what she did was better than nothing, and it was not. It was worse than nothing.
I was talking about the issue here - her non-apology disguised as an apology. I did discuss this issue, and in debunking what you said, I was on topic. Your stated desire to get her fired is simply a side issue.
Nomobush/Notthatgeorge
If you are so angry , email FAUX like I did.
As I said before you are playing games and trying to disrupt the board. Of course however since this thread is 2 days old, none one is reading your attempt here to play games.
You also never addressed the issue, just more games.
You really are pathetic
If you are so angry, email FAUX like I did.
I emailed Fox News on Friday when this first appeared. I also followed the template that Media Matters offered at the beginning of this week as well as telling numerous friends about this so that they could complain too. I don't need you to tell me how to run my life however, and that as nothing to do in any case with your misleading postings on this thread.
As I said before you are playing games and trying to disrupt the board. Of course however since this thread is 2 days old, none one is reading your attempt here to play games.
No, it's been you trying to play games from the start. I don't care if anyone else ever reads this. You are the one who attacked me. Several posters said the same things that I did, that her apology was actually a non-apology and that it was not progress, debunking what you said. But you only attacked me. I was addressing the issue that you raised, that her non-apology was better than nothing. I was addressing the issue that you raised, that you never expected her to say anything. You made that last point several times, never indicating that you were kidding or being sarcastic in any of your posts. I was staying on topic - discussing what her non-apology meant. You are the one who turned it personal. That's playing games. That's taking it off topic. Look in the mirror.
You also never addressed the issue, just more games.
I addressed the issue repeatedly. I addressed the issue the first day this appeared on this site. I addressed the issue of her apology being less than nothing. I addressed the issue that her non-apology was misleading, and I suspect it was contrived to appear like an apology but not actually be one. You baseless and vile smear that I never addressed the issue doesn't hold up to the least intensive of overviews. Anyone who does read this knows that I addressed the issue. The issue was not should she be fired, although upon your demand, I even addressed that issue!!! It was an apology for which Media Matters wanted us to tell Fox News that it was inadequate. I said that in my first post on this issue when I replied that it was a non-apology and was not better than nothing. For you to claim that I never addressed the issue is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really are pathetic.
Look in the mirror. You have been off-base with your baseless and vile smears for the past two days. You haven't raised a valid issue. You've distorted much of what I've said, and ignored most everything else in order to claim that I didn't discuss the issue. You need to get a life and stop with the personal attacks or you'll lose all credibility.
You call this an apology?
Faux News put some real force behind her apology when they cancelled her show. Now if they would only cancel O'Reilly's embarassment and Hannity's two disasters.
TRANSLATION: "My bosses at FOX told me to suggest that the Obamas' fist bump was a terrorist gesture...and, now, because of the blowback I've got to say I didn't mean it."
Exactly.
Not only that but she is oh-so-subtly blaming those 'few' who took offense at it. See... that's how these cretinous media morons 'apologize'... put the responsibility on the viewers, not themselves.
Because only a few who watch and listen to her drivel actually WERE offended by it. The vast majority of her viewers thought it was a real hoot... you know, the dumbass segment. :)
FOX wants the paint the GOP lie that Obama is somehow a terrorist. How low they will go.
With all of the nervous energy and noise devoted to nothing at all, it's no wonder at how ineffectual and lame is any attempt at opposition, to anything real and substantial.
Personally, I'd feel better about this apology if Ms. Hill could cite a single media outlet that so characterized the gesture.
Human Events Online is likely where it came from - a distasteful rightwing site - a commentary from Cal Thomas either had that phrase (actually, "Hezbollah style fist bump") either in his commentary or in a comment. The actual comment has been removed, but numerous people replied to the comment, most of them offended by the smear of Obama.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26692&page=1
And a great big thank-you, YMMOT, for making me blow my drink all over my monitor! Precious! :o)
Well, some in the "Media" have characterized the Bush Administration as lying about the Iraq War intelligence.... will she be mentioning that? I didn't think so.
And I certainly didn't mean to associate the word "terrorist" in any way to Senator Obama and his wife.
A flat-out lie. The mere act of mentioning it in almost literally the same breath as the Obamas cannot be anything but associating the word with the couple. After all, who else was she talking about but the Obamas?
Either come back with a real apology, E(normously) D(emented), or do something else creative, like throwing yourself off a tall building...
Yup! And that's the problem with her whole douchey intro to the story.
Which media outlet or person would characterize the Obama's fist bump as terroristic? Which one, E.D? Or did he/she E.D. pull the time-honored anchor hand job of saying,"This activity has some people wondering if it's a terroristic gesture." Meaning, "I am personally throwing this out there to see what I can raise."
I hear the morning doofusses say the same thing. It's not unlike Matt what's-his-name to say something like,"His actions have many people wondering about his intentions."
What people, Matt? How many did you interview? How many did your research intern call and interview?
Bollocks!
Check this out...E.D. Hill is losing her show! Perhaps FOX thinks she's too liberal...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/fox-news-changes-terroris_n_106306.html
From the referenced article:
America's Pulse anchored by E.D. Hill goes away, but Hill stays with the network in a capacity to be determined.
Look for E. D. to be serving up "Freedom Fries" in the Faux News commissary... :-)
Her Wikipedia page has already beed edited to include the cancellation of her show:
* * * * * *
E. D. Hill (born Edith Ann Tarbox on July 27, 1961) is an American news anchor who works for Fox News Channel.
Joining the network in 1998, Hill anchored America's Pulse, a show that aired until June 10, 2008 when it was canceled. She co-hosts Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor. Hill moved to the 2:00 p.m. hour after serving as host of the 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon block of Fox News Live. These changes were part of a line-up change that also includes fellow anchors Jon Scott and Jane Skinner teaming up for a show called Happening Now.[1] Previously, Hill was a co-host on the Fox News Channel's morning show Fox & Friends from 1999 to 2006.
A graduate of the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in journalism, she is working on a master's degree in government. Hill won a local Emmy Award for Outstanding News Special while working for WHDH-TV in Boston (1990-91), and has also received a Golden Quill Award for live spot news reporting.
In November 2005 Hill published a book entitled Going Places: How America's Best and Brightest Got Started Down the Road of Life, a collection of personality profiles. She has been married three times and is the mother of five children and stepmother to her husband's, venture capitalist Joe Hill, three children from a previous marriage.
More recently, she has filled in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor. Media Matters for America criticized her for referring to an affectionate gesture made between Barack Obama and his wife after the final 2008 presidential Democratic primaries as a "terrorist fist jab". Hill, introducing an upcoming discussion, wondered aloud if the gesture was "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?" [1][2][3]
Fox News announced on June 10, 2008 that Hill's show "America's Pulse" had been canceled due to the "terrorist fist jab" controversy.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hill
She has been married three times and is the mother of five children and stepmother to her husband's, venture capitalist Joe Hill, three children from a previous marriage.
Now that's family values for you, Beaver Cleaver...
And just who was it above who called her a dingbat? Was she really Mrs. Archie Bunker?
Edith! Dingbat! Archie Bunker! That was a joke, son!
(/Foghorn Leghorn impersonation off)
Yup that was Lily. But I think the other character was the tarbaby. Brer Rabbit's nemisis. Source Uncle Remus.
That's a diabolical combination Col. To be so annoyed, but unable to do anything about it.
Martha Gluit recomends turpintine as a braindamaged clean up solution after a wrestling session with today's tarbabies.
And I certainly didn't mean to associate the word "terrorist" in any way to Senator Obama and his wife.
Yeah, right.
Remember all the "silly" stuff they dumped on Al Gore? Earth tones, Naomi Wolf teaching him how to be a man, "inventing" the internet, "lying" about his sister's death.... it all seems trivial, but it added up to weave a narrative, and since most people don't pay attention to policy positions, these narratives make a difference. The Troglodytes successfully painted Gore as a serial exaggerator who was so nerdy he didn't know how to dress himself. In a national election decided by 5oo votes, ignoring this crap may have cost him the Presidency.
If it's her show though, she probably had everything to do with the writing, correct?
Fox is still responsible for her and her comments, but if I was Hill and I was literally reading what someone else wrote, I'd immediately hit up CNN to talk about it.
(Go Fck Yourself, San Diego!)
Great Odin's Wrath!
Seems to be that Fox is the final stop for these cretins. Think Major Garrett, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo, Chris Wallace, and others. See the pattern? All had jobs in other networks prior to Fox.
Last station before heading into obscurity.
Fox News and most of the news has been off in my home for a few years.
The only one I watch is Keith Oldermann.
The only thing I have to say is """ BOYCOTT FOX NEWS """
send them an e-mail & call them.
Media Matters 5 *****
peace loretta rosa Brooklyn,N.Y.
Who had characterized the gesture, as she refers to here:"various ways the Obamas' fist pump in St. Paul had been characterized in the media" before she, the racist brought it up??? Hmmm?
Any one any one???
Possible suspects, Karl Rove, Ossama B, Elvis, Ming the Mercilous, The Xmas Bunny, The Hulk, The Dark Skippy.
Supena's will be issued and ignored.
What an utterly bu||$h!t apology. "Some people interpreted" (How many CAN you interpret that?) "Wasn't my intention" (What WAS, pray tell?) "I did ascribe 'terrorist' to Sen Obama." In the words of Jules Winfield: YES YOU DID BRET! YES YOU DID!
Special ED Hill is a spineless, lying, wuss with very little judgement, less wit and no character at all.
Special ED Hill is a spineless, lying, wuss with very little judgement, less wit and no character at all.
Which, of course, is how she found a job with Fox...
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said. 11/1/2006
From the John Kerry School of apologies - Blame it on those who misinterpreted what they think I said.
Also do you love to smear John Kerry?
Dems, what does that have to do with Moron Hill? - Hill's apology reminds me of Kerrys as it is the type of apology that blames the listner for misinterpreting what was heard and not the speaker for saying something stupid.
Also do you love to smear John Kerry? - I don't believe I reference Kerry very often - but when I do it's because he gave me so much material to work with.
From the John Kerry School of apologies - Blame it on those who misinterpreted what they think I said.
From the Dem Sol School of Deflecting Justified Criticism and Posting Apologias for Worthless Dirtbags Like E. D. Hill...
Today's Lesson; The Difference Between Honest Misunderstanding and Getting Caught Spreading a Slander on Worldwide Cable...
On your world is there a difference between apples and oranges?
Kerry's badly mangled joke (The man really is awful at using humor) had no intention of insulting the armed forces adn was aimed at the idiocy of W. It was the chorus of wingnut screechmonkeys that turned it into a front page headline of "Kerry thinks the troops are stupid."
Now, how is that quite the same as inventing a whole new figure of speech (terrorist fist jab) in order to get the word terrorist into a story about Obama? And where exactly was all this supposed media hubbub about Obama using that gesture anyway? Even Chris Matthews didn't bother to do 5 minutes on whether things like this can help him "seem more like one of those Joe SixDirts living under the sod drinking coffee and bowling."
Both Kerry's and Hill's apologies were aimed at those who misinterpreted what was said, and not at themselves for saing something stupid.
Again, Kerry mangled his words making it easy to misinterpret what he meant to say. How exactly is Hill's gratuitous use of the word "terrorist" being misinterpreted?
Nevermind, enjoy your orange pie and duck a'la apple.
Let's try really stupid analogies for $1000 here:
I am behind you on a staircase. In example one I trip over my own feet and in the resulting fall I tumble into you and knock you down the stairs as well. In example two I reach out and shove you down the stairs.
Do you really see these two events as the same thing?
Let's try really stupid analogies for $1000 here:
The initial action is not what's in question here - it is the aplology AFTER they got caught we are discussiog. They BOTH blamed OTHERS for misunderstanding. They are both ignorant to their own stupidity - however you are willing to give a pass to the liberal politician while crucifying the conservative journalist. I am giving neither one a pass.
I was fishing for some liberal hypocrisy -you took the bait.
The original intent has everything to do with whether or not an apology like "I apologize to those who were offended" is sincere or not.
The difference is that Hill and other hot airhead wingnuts before her had absolutely all intent to say something controversial that anyone would realize is going to be found offensive and when the inevitable happens they put the blame on the listener with these backhanded apologies.
It's like this: "DemSol you are an idiot." "DemSol I am sorry that you find being called an idiot offensive."
You've caught nothing. Sorry, Charlie.
If, after the tumble down the stairs where it was an accident, let's say that the person who was accidentally pushed accuses the other of pushing him down the stairs.
The falsely accused says "I'm sorry you think I pushed you down the stairs." He's not being a hypocrite for saying that his intentions were misunderstood, and he'd be within his rights to say it.
In the other instance, the correctly accused person could also say "I'm sorry you think I pushed you down the stairs." He'd be a hypocrite if he said that.
It's the actions afterward that are different.
John Kerry was correct in saying the flaw was with those that misinterpreted his joke because he didn't phrase it eloquently. It was a joke. It was misinterpreted.
ED Hill sitting in a tree
LYING
First comes Lies , than comes more Lies than comes ED Hill being caught in a lie.
My attempt at humor, but wow she is a liar and an idiot.
She just lost the gig too.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/10/ed-terrorist-fist-jab-hill-loses-her-show-on-foxnews/Like I said on the first thread about this topic, using the phrase of Roland S. Martin http://www.wvon.com http://www.rolandsmartin.com E.D. Hill is a lying right wing Republican Hate Hag ball of hate. She's also ignorant, too.
The sorry excuses who watch fools like E.D. and the other Fox Lies Channel fools are even BIGGER idiots and fools than E.D. Hill is.
If "terrorist hand jab" was merely "a way the fist pump had been characterized in the media", her astute media savvy should have no problem attributing the characterization to some other media source, right?
I mean, other than herself.
I think Faux didn't decide to replace ED because of this flap ... it is trivial, relatively speaking, in the light of the misinformation these b*s*t*r*ds are responsible for spreading in the last decade (meaning, b*s*t*r*d war mongering, swift-boating, O'Blathering, You're a Great American VANITY, and their off-the-charts claim of being "fair and balanced". You decide. My guess is that Faux is in the embarassing position of changing out their first string in anticipation of a big fight over reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.
I hope that President Obama makes reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine one of his goals. I'm a big proponent. Let's start by undoing some of the "unfairness" from Reagan's administration, now that the momentum is in our favor.
Reinstating the fairness doctrine would provice a fair and equal-time hearing, over the public air waves, for all points of view: that sounds fair to me. Duh.
And in the meantime, thanks to MMfA for providing a venue for fairness, although they don't (and can't) address equal time on the radio waves.
HILL: I personally had characterized it inappropriately. I regret that.
She READ the word "terrorist" from Fox News' teleprompter. I glad she regrets doing her job.