When you scream that the sky is falling sooo many times, it is easy to believe you again said it, whether true or false. John Gibson has earned this honor of people ALWAYS thinking he is saying the sky is falling; he has fought a long war to receive this
recognition.

As a d8isclaimer, when I say people, I mean non-Faux observers of the REAL world.

well, this should show all of them -- when you engage in the level and depth of stoopid that gibson and fox do, you can't blame anyone when stuff like this happens.

if fox ran fewer stories from the onion perhaps we wouldn't mistake onion stories for fox stories.

I doubt Gibson would see his reflection in a mirror.

Gibson may have a libel action here. The justifications of the smear sound to me like claims that a rape victim was "asking for it."

This was not the blogosphere's finest hour.

An "unfortunate incident" ? "unpleasant episode"?

Bloody amazing.

One wonders just what in the world Benen would consider to be a blatant lie? At what point does Benen get into 'full scream' mode? Would he be screaming if someone had posted a doctored vid of Obama, putting him in a similarly bad light? I'm willing to bet he'd be on the front lines, as close to the tar bucket as possble, feathers in hand.

Consider what has happened the past when the shoe has been on the other foot, and the Democrats, and their usual mouthpieces have been the target of such fairy tales. If I had time just now, I would be all over Google, to see what his comments were with regards to Dan Rather for example.

That point aside, one does have to give credit to Benen, who clearly has grasped the idea that he cannot avoid the blatantly obvious, at least in this case. But Benen slides right by the point of the whole deal, on his parting shot, perhaps intentionally:

"But I wonder if Gibson might take this opportunity to ponder why so many were willing to believe the unfair misquote in the first place."

I wonder if Benen has asked similar questions of himself as regards the general perceptions of the intentions of Democrats since the change of power in Washington? If he's going to point at the supposedly rep of the right, and such people as Gibson, at what point is he going to apply that rubric to the left? What, I wonder, does Benen think it is the basis of the left's bad reputation?

If the question applies to one, why not the other?

I must admit I am impressed that you're closer than usual, Steve. Still, no cigar.

Gibson is a public figure and there is no indication that any of the websites that reported on the quote either created the fake video clip or knew it was fake at the time. All of them seem to have printed retractions within hours.

Besides, in a sane world, any Fox News host trying to sue for defamation would get laughed out of court given their record of false attacks on others.

In a nutsack i mean nutshell, Who Cares.

It's the truthiness problem: it sounds like something he might have said. That is a very slippery slope to start down. Better to stay away from it.

But I wonder if Gibson might take this opportunity to ponder why so many were willing to believe the unfair misquote in the first place.

That woould require Gibson's to deactivate his cognitive dissonance switch and self-reflect. That's not gonna happen.

Dear Mr Eric Florack:

Are you sincere, or are you yet another parody? As we have seen many times in the comments area, very bright people take the Colbert route, and it's tough to discern real from satire.

If indeed you are a parody, Bravo! The "Concern Troll" has never been so well played, it's as though it was from the heart. However, the parody may be indicated when you figurativly shout "a blatant lie" when referring to a corporate schill like Gibson. Funny, really.

However, the parody may be indicated when you figurativly shout "a blatant lie" when referring to a corporate schill like Gibson

So, I assume the standard is to be the now-hackneyed fake but accurate' cry?

Funny, speaking of that, how the crioes of 'evil corporations' didn't manage to get attached to this meme when Rather got caught, ain't it?

Spare me your double standards.

"But I wonder if Gibson might take this opportunity to ponder why so many were willing to believe the unfair misquote in the first place."

NO!

Anyone got a link to the original?

At:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6155.html#comment-18467

they say 'have to see it to believe it' and link to a video

which is not found

Florack - It may seem unfair, but after the Niger documents, apologies to Bush's water boys are going to be rare. Especially for things as trivial as this.

Hi Eric, thanks for the reply.

First, I agree with you that the fake audio, the blatant lie that someone put together was totally, absolutely reprehensible. And perhaps Steve's chiding tone did not convey that fact in stong enough terms, but that was not the point of the post.

The point was that John Gibson has put some really offensive things out there (the Heath Ledger item, c'mon respect the dead). Because of his past behavior, this lie was believed by many people. Perhaps someone who lays down with dogs shouldn't be surprised to get some fleas.

And "evil" corporations? No, that's not my belief, but look at what each one does. As far as Media corporations, I'd say the net effect is evil. Bush got the presidency in 2000 with the Corporate Media's help. Just ask Bob Somerby. Bush made America a nation where many accept TORTURE. Yes, I believe that is evil. It's not just that one item, but that's one of the most blatant examples.

So John Gibson has done things worthy of scorn. I don't think Steve was defending the offenders this time, just pointing out the real crap that come from the multi-millionaire "victim."

Thanks for your concern.

Eric Florack wrote: "Spare me your double standards."

You are quite right.

The fact that John Gibson has a long, well-documented public career as a bought-and-paid-for, vicious liar and purveyor of malicious hate speech is no justification for his own employer, Fox News, which has paid him handsomely for years for his vicious lies and malicious hate speech directed at others, to falsely portray him as engaging in an act of malicious hate speech which, while it was really indistinguishable from other vicious lies and malicious hate speech that Gibson has actually broadcast on the Fox News network, he did not in this case actually commit.

Anyone who finds a sense of poetic justice in Gibson being subjected to the sort of false, vicious, dishonest attack by the very corporation that has made him wealthy by paying him to do the same to others, is certainly engaging in a hypocritical double standard.

The point was that John Gibson has put some really offensive things out there

To the left, anyway. And that excuses this.

ANd what, "Secular', of the long list of lies the supposed mainstream news people have been putting out for decades about anyone to the right of Castro?

I find your concern, and your outrage, to be selective at least, and in truth biased as hell. I've no doubt you won't see it that way, but there it is.

Charles vs. John Gibson? I get the distinction you're trying to make. But it doesn't work.

Respect for Charles Gibson plummeted to rock bottom and stayed there over the past couple years too. Sure, one is worse than the other, I guess, but Charles Gibson's near-total lack of professionalism, and egregiously offensive personal behavior and open bias -- well, it leaves me with nothing but contempt for him on every level.

John may be a ludicrous buffoon, but Charles is more insidious because people actually believe he's responsible, or reasonable, or balanced, or a reporter. Ugh. FAIL, Charles. Total Fail.

"...ANd what, "Secular', of the long list of lies the supposed mainstream news people have been putting out for decades about anyone to the right of Castro?"

Let's start with "The economy was GREAT under George W. Bush!"

C'mon folks - Eric has requested a list of your favorites.

Personally, mine is that W was actually elected in 2000. The final tally in Florida has been supressed ever since that time. My next is that Ohio acually went to W in 2004.

The broken link you have to see to believe is:
http://crooksandliars.com/2005/12/21.html#a6426

Comments at the site are broken, but I guess this site is the continuation of the carpetbagger report -- any hope of fixing the broken pointer?
Or adding to the old thread explaining it?

"I wonder if Gibson might take this opportunity to ponder why so many were willing to believe the unfair misquote in the first place."

I'm sure that he already knows the reason - you're a bunch of deluded morons.

But what I found interesting about the unpleasant episode was how very easy it was to believe Gibson made the comment. No one, anywhere, heard this story and assumed something was amiss.

That's because, like the famous Pauline Kael story (I know it is apocryphal), you know only victims of BDS who will believe anything of a conservative.

Steve - your point is a good one, but way too subtle and "complicated" for most righties to appreciate and understand (since not with clear good-guy/bad-guy) so a good thing it's here and not in e.g. a newspaper blog.

Hey Eric Florack, even if Steve B wasn't as utterly outraged as you think he should have been to find John Gibson the victim of a misrepresentation, Steve B still properly credited it as a wrong - more than most rightie bloggers etc. would do about a liberal victim of same. And his main point was that it was so believable that Gibson would do that - see, maybe too complicated for you ..

BTW, And that excuses this.
Dishonest spin, beeyatch. Steve didn't say that the framing of John Gibson was excused by Gibson's indeed outrageous insults to "the left", but rather that Gibson's antics made the false charge ironically believable. Once more with feeling: righties too stupid ...

If blaming the victim in rape cases for "dressing slutty" is wrong, why is it okay to blame the victim in this case? I see no difference between what you are arguing and someone saying, "It's wrong that she got assaulted, but she really shouldn't have been dressing so provocatively for so long."

Hey Eric Florack, even if Steve B wasn't as utterly outraged as you think he should have been to find John Gibson the victim of a misrepresentation, Steve B still properly credited it as a wrong -

Yeah, as I said, he got it closer than usual.
Full stop.

Steve didn't say that the framing of John Gibson was excused by Gibson's indeed outrageous insults to "the left", but rather that Gibson's antics made the false charge ironically believable.

No, Steve didn't.As I say, he got it closer than usual. But a lot of the rest of you seemingly hold that position.... solely on your own preconceptions, apparently.

And Jason?
Just so.

John Gibson, proof that the only "good Republicans" are pushing up daisies. Hopefully, he'll become a good Republican sooner rather than later.

The same thought has occurred to me for a long time concerning the widespread belief that Cheney and maybe Bush were complicit in taking down the Twin Towers. If Barack Obama had been president at the time, only the really rabid right wing would believe that he was personally responsible, but the percentage of people who think that Cheney was involved is considerable. It says a lot about the kind of person that inhabits the Republican neocon wing.

The Ledger comments were in poor taste for sure, but the thing that really convinced of Gibson's vileness was when he mocked Jon Stewart's emotional opening to his first show after 9/11. Gibson's just an awful, awful human being.

Nevertheless, it is of course wrong to defraud people into thinking he said something he didn't say.

But I wonder if Gibson might take this opportunity to ponder ...

HA! That's rich. Keep 'em coming.

What, I wonder, does Benen think it is the basis of the left's bad reputation?

I think your comparison would work a lot better if there actually were an entire bullshit-spouting industry on the left screaming their distortions 24-7 about the right (the fact that some people think this is true is a victory of that of the right, which is more proof of my point).

In other words, your argument only makes any sense if you assume your false equivalency. Why does the left have the reputation it does among the gullible morons who listen to Rush Limbaugh? That question kind of answers itself, doesn't it? And what does that have to do with any actual behavior of the left?

I mean, in order for you to have a point at all, tell us - who on the left is the equivalent (in terms of stridency, dishonesty, and audience) of Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin? Much less the combination of all of them? If you can give a non-bullshit answer to that question, then you may have a point. Good luck.

That's because, like the famous Pauline Kael story (I know it is apocryphal), you know only victims of BDS who will believe anything of a conservative.

Most of the groundwork for this has been done by conservatives, of course. Once Malkin (for instance) talks about Rachael Ray promoting terrorism because of her gray paisley scarf, that sets a pretty high bar for ridiculousness.

Homosexuals caused Katrina? Feminism promotes witchcraft? Obama is a "radical communist"? Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster? Bill Clinton ran a drug empire about of Mena airport?

I could go on, and list about a thousand completely silly things that very prominent conservatives have said. If the general conclusion of all of this is that conservatives tend to say very stupid things, they really only have themselves to blame for that.

But a lot of the rest of you seemingly hold that position.... solely on your own preconceptions, apparently.

Um, basing one's opinions about John Gibson on the lengthy track record of moronic things he's already said don't exactly qualify as "pre"-conceptions. You're pretending that these things don't exist, in spite of them having been referenced several times in this very thread.

I mean, in general, when right-wing pundits spew forth an endless stream of nonsense, the fact that people wind up with the expectation of further nonsense is the only accountability that conservative pundits ever, ever experience. And even that you're whining about? Please.

Who is John Gibson?

No wait, don't tell me. I don't care.