LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
Here's the page for his Fox News show.
And his poorly timed commentary on London, Paris, terrorism, and the Olympics. Like I said, the next day he looked like a dick.
And his poorly timed commentary on London, Paris, terrorism, and the Olympics. Like I said, the next day he looked like a dick.
Nice people, those guys at Fox
quote:
Fox News slammed over 'callous' line
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel was under fire yesterday for comments by some of its leading journalists in response to the London bombs.
Speaking about the reaction of the financial markets, Brit Hume, the channel's Washington managing editor, said: "Just on a personal basis ... I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought 'hmm, time to buy'."
The host of a Fox News programme, Brian Kilmeade, said the attacks had the effect of putting terrorism back on the top of the G8's agenda, in place of global warming and African aid. "I think that works to our advantage, in the western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened."
Article continues
Another Fox News host, John Gibson, said before the blasts that the International Olympic Committee "missed a golden opportunity" by not awarding the 2012 games to 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?" He added: "This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics - let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."
Media Matters for America, a watchdog and frequent critic of Fox, criticised the comments on its website. "I think it's absolutely sickening three Fox anchors had such callous reactions to the bombings that took dozens of lives," said the Jamison Foser, of the group.
The Fox News media relations office had not responded by the time the Guardian went to press yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1524856,00.html
quote:
Fox News slammed over 'callous' line
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel was under fire yesterday for comments by some of its leading journalists in response to the London bombs.
Speaking about the reaction of the financial markets, Brit Hume, the channel's Washington managing editor, said: "Just on a personal basis ... I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought 'hmm, time to buy'."
The host of a Fox News programme, Brian Kilmeade, said the attacks had the effect of putting terrorism back on the top of the G8's agenda, in place of global warming and African aid. "I think that works to our advantage, in the western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened."
Article continues
Another Fox News host, John Gibson, said before the blasts that the International Olympic Committee "missed a golden opportunity" by not awarding the 2012 games to 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?" He added: "This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics - let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."
Media Matters for America, a watchdog and frequent critic of Fox, criticised the comments on its website. "I think it's absolutely sickening three Fox anchors had such callous reactions to the bombings that took dozens of lives," said the Jamison Foser, of the group.
The Fox News media relations office had not responded by the time the Guardian went to press yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1524856,00.html
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I'm just not getting it. How was something said before the blasts a callous reaction to the bombings? ??? Is this one of those wink wink sort of things where no one is going to actually respond directly to the allegations? Is this like the emperors clothes? Are we all just supposed to agree? I'm not a Fox sycophant. If they were wrong then fine but shouldn't we be able to note what they did wrong?demon said:
What is the context of these quotes? While they seem at first insensitive it is impossible to judge based on what is here.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Not in regards to the bombing, no. As to the nature of the comments themselves, yeah they are a bit callous but isn't that par for the course for someone like Gibson? I hear this kind of stuff accross the political spectrum towards any and everyone. I don't excuse it nor do I say it is ok because someone else does it (Tu Quoque). However I think it should be put in persepective and if you are going to hold those on the right to the fire then I think you should hold everyone to the same standard. It seems to me that there is a double standard when it comes to the press and pundits. I certainly understand the sentiment towards France. They have certainly seemed quite indeferent to us at times. Are such words fair to the French people? No. Will his words help to improve relations? No. But then it does take two to tango.demon said:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You hear left wing pundints dismissing the terrorist bombing of another country as acceptable?RandFan said:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Come on hgc, read the post again. I couldn't be more clear. Here is a quote, "I certainly understand the sentiment towards France. They have certainly seemed quite indifferent to us at times." During the Iraqi invasion a Le Monde poll showed that "twenty-five percent of the French wanted Iraq to win just slightly less than the number who preferred a US victory." An Iraqi victory would require many dead American soldiers, you know the same ones only a different generation that gave their lives to liberate France.hgc said:
Are you really in such denial? Take a look at my avatar. That is Jeanine Garofolo mocking Republicans as Nazis. And she is a pundit as is John Gibson. And BTW, I did not say anything about major news organizations, you did. I said "I hear this kind of stuff across the political spectrum towards any and everyone." Now if you want to argue Gibson is part of a national news organization and therefore it is worse for him I'm on your side. But listen to Air America or some other liberal commentators or pundits. This crap IS being thrown around by folks on all sides. It is not really a debatable point.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Gibson's words where obviously hyperbolic and rhetorical. Gibson wouldn't want any one to die and he would very much care that innocent people had been murdered. I'm not here to defend what he said and I very much think his words were insensitive and wrong but let's not make them what they clearly were not. When Alec Baldwin suggested under the right circumstances we should stone to death Henry Hyde he wasn't really meaning he wished Henry Hyde could be stoned to death.Upchurch said:
Ed said:
A couple of quotes:
Really? What am I supposed to think of this? If this is true, if these are the views of many americans, than a lot of americans are ignorant idiots, because Canada is not a vast ice-encrusted wastelend dedicated to beer and American-bashing (well duh!). Which part do you wish I refute? The ice-encrusted wasteland part, the dedicated to beer part or the anti-americanism part? This phrase is just a rhetorical listing of prejudiced opinions.
If the U.S. decided not to do business with Canada, how many U.S. citizens would lose their jobs making the goods for export to Canada? How many U.S. firms could shunt aside the collapse of their stocks on Wall Street after eliminating the Canadian export market from their portfolios?
That's the two-way street that the almighty ethos of free trade is supposed to be all about. Didn't the folks at Fox teach Mr. Gibson that?
Oh, and by the way, Canada is the largest source of imported crude oil in the U.S. — bigger than Saudi Arabia. You know, crude oil: its the stuff that allows the U.S. to manufacture and export all those goodies to the ungrateful Canadians.
A question: do average U.S. citizens hold this kind of antipathy to Canada? From my experience, they don't.
JR "BOB" Dobbs
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 58
Drivel
...remember, selling advertisement space is where he makes money, and nothing attracts attention like this type of drivel. How much of his article is fact and how much is rhetoric?
...remember, selling advertisement space is where he makes money, and nothing attracts attention like this type of drivel. How much of his article is fact and how much is rhetoric?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
It was not a statement of fact. You are correct it is rhetoric. However it is in response to statements comming from Canada. It is frustrating to hear some really mean and nasty rhetoric comming from our neighbors to the north.Orwell said:
I am a huge fan of trade, domestic and international. The Canadians are very important to the U.S. no doubt. Gibson is perhaps making two points, first that Canadians need us more than we need them. This is debatable but I believe in a relationship such as ours the larger of the two partners is less dependant on the other. This could be specious however and besides who needs who the most is besides the point. It would be devastating to America to lose so important of a trading partner and the part about the oil is a huge point. The second is that Canadian's view America with contempt. We would like not to be so easily dismissed by our trading partner.
John was clearly responding to the antipathy many Canadians hold for America. Don't you think respect should be mutual? If I were to debate John I would say that it is a minority of Canadians who share such sentiment and I would not attack an entire people for the words of a few. Besides, those words were directed at the leaders (George Bush et al) and not the people.
From his column:
Fortunately for you, I don't base my opinion of the US of A exclusively on what John Gibson, that Coulter person and your home-grown religious nuts say!
Canada is a free country, people can say what they want, no matter how prejudiced, narrow minded and stupid. But in Canada, these kinds of opinions are not generally found on regular TV shows.
The vast majority of Canadians don't like the Bush administration and it's policies much. But, in spite of what Fox news would like us to believe, this is not the same thing as being anti-american.
He bases these "opinions" on a couple of quotes from a few canadians and on the opinion of one historian.
Fortunately for you, I don't base my opinion of the US of A exclusively on what John Gibson, that Coulter person and your home-grown religious nuts say!
Canada is a free country, people can say what they want, no matter how prejudiced, narrow minded and stupid. But in Canada, these kinds of opinions are not generally found on regular TV shows.
The vast majority of Canadians don't like the Bush administration and it's policies much. But, in spite of what Fox news would like us to believe, this is not the same thing as being anti-american.