Earlier this week, it was noted that John Gibson of Fox News, on his radio show, made an utterly bizarre attack on Jon Stewart by mocking his post 9/11 commentary, on a show where he was defending the idea that another 9/11 was necessary in this country for the sake of 'national unity'. I made a diary on this as did BruinKid (who's diary I don't have the link to ATM).
As many have already noticed as well, Jon Stewart took obvious offense to this, the subject coming up (though not explicitly) in his interview with Stephen Hayes. Quoting him: "You know, I myself had some idiot from Fox playing the tape of me after September 11th -- very upset. And them calling me a phony (...) because, apparently, my grief didn't mean acquiescence."
Well, John Gibson took offense at Stewart's offense. On two different occasions, no less. On his August 14th show, he talked about the 'War on Gibson', in a strange moment of egocentricity. On the 16th, he went at it again, stating that Jon Stewart was "purposeful(ly) misunderstanding" his mocking comments. (more beyond the fold).
On August 14th, Gibson talked about the comments that had gotten him into hot water. From the Transcript via Media Matters:
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.
They went on to -- ONCE AGAIN -- mock his comments as they played it back for the listening audience. He then feigned shock and hurt, as he went through how he was attacked -- ATTACKED! for an 'unfortunate turn of phrase'. You know, where his producer accused John Edwards of being "a man who whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick". Something Gibson simply considers a 'rib'. Finally, he states for his audience "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."
------
On August 16th, he was at it once again, never one to leave a bee's nest undisturbed, despite the multitude of stings he's gotten already, not to mention the utter stupidity of it all.
He laments the emails and comments he got, taking him to task for this whole episode, before stating defiantly "I'm going to go right on being a terrible person because it's just more fun. [...] I think trouble and fun is what this program ought to be all about." With that preface, you know he's about to say something infuriating.
And you'd be right, as Gibson went on to talk about the Hayes interview, playing back clips of the exchange, particular where Stewart references Gibson's mockery of him. Some choice commentary here:
STEWART: Well, no -- the difference there is, we're not calling them traitors.
GIBSON: Yeah, you are.
GIBSON: Oh, well -- [audio clip of punching noises] ooh, ouch, geez, ooh. That was me he's talking about. You know, my problem with this is that I think there's a purposeful misunderstanding. We did -- we did tease him about his grief, but it was to compare it with what he's been saying lately. Yeah, he thinks -- Jon Stewart thinks the war has been fought wrong. To say that the liberal side hasn't called people traitors is absurd. It certainly has. Bloggers who idolize Jon Stewart have been trashing me for mocking Stewart do precisely that. Stewart's funny. 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.
God, where to start.
For one thing...he seems to prove exactly what Jon Stewart was saying: Gibson's accusation seems to stem exactly from the idea that his grief didn't translate into acquiescence. That somehow, it's impossible to have grieved and been hurt by 9/11, and yet still come to the conclusion that Bush's little war was utterly misguided and foolish.
The fact that he continues to mock Stewart, as if just to be defiant about it, shows you just how little of a man Gibson is.
Then, his later comments. He simply characterizes his attacks as 'shots' and 'an elbow now and then'. He also criticizes the fact that Jon Stewart is critical of things, like the wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. 'reasonable measures' by his standards. He then claims that Jon Stewart considers them beneath argument. He accuses Jon Stewart of thinking of himself as a 'sacred cow'. This man, who stated that there is a real 'War on Gibson', accusing another man of treating himself as a 'sacred cow', with no irony.
Gibson also ignores the fact that Jon Stewart, despite the contention that he think such issues are 'beneath argument', actually...you know, has ARGUED about them, with guests, on all ranges of subjects. You know, kind of like what he did with Hayes in the interview in question. You know, if they were beneath argument, you'd think he'd simply try and dismiss them, or...you know, not have guests that discuss such things at all so as to avoid such subjects.
And finally Gibson seems to show his callousness in his casual dismissal of his own remarks, as if they were just some small joke, and somehow deserved at that. As Keith Olbermann noted before, many people could be critical of Gibson's politics and ideas (God knows they're horribly misguided at best, and batcrap insane at worst). However, few of us would ever go so far as to impugn his character by insisting that whatever grief he may have had in the days after 9/11 were somehow phony or faked. Just because he didn't come to the same conclusion after that time as we did, I doubt ANY of us would contend that he didn't not suffer real grief, real sorrow, real hurt. However, Gibson not only deigns to do this, but he treats it as just a throwaway joke, throwing up his hands and wondering why everyone's making such a big deal.
In so, he reveals the shallowness of his character. To dismiss the very real, very DANGEROUS accusations against many anti-war and liberal people as genuine traitors (even taking into account the rather infamous "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" and "objectively Pro-Saddam" attacks), then to treat a man's heartfelt grief as fair game just because he doesn't follow a certain political line? Because he feels that there were different lessons to be learned from 9/11? And to complain about a war against him when people attack him for his callous, unfeeling, petulant commentary? It borders on inhuman, if it hasn't already passed that threshold.
I'm sorry, Mr. Gibson, but you have crossed a line here. You have crossed a line that you refused to even recognize, because you don't think you should be held accountable for whatever you say. You, who deem it fit to be judge of a man's genuine emotion, on a day that you wish to echo and repeat for your own misguided ideas of what would result. You criticize Jon Stewart for having EMOTION in a time of shock and sorrow, when you yourself have advocated the idea that having America experience a second 9/11 would be a GOOD thing. You would want us to live through those days once again, to have 'national unity', when you yourself can't even recognize WHY we were unified then, to the point of doubting a man's sincerity because he opposes wiretappings or is opposed to the abuses in Guantanamo.
Mr. Gibson, I said it once, but I'll say it once again: The only phony involved in this whole mess is YOU.