Olbermann takes on Gibson and O’Reilly…
Tonight on Countdown Keith Olbermann returned John Gibson’s and Bill O’Reilly’s fire big time. I’d be spending the rest of the night transcribing the verbal assault so here are the highlights…
- He took on O’Reilly over his ratings comments from last week. Olbermann said that he never claimed that The Factor doesn’t draw more viewers than Countdown and recycled his “800 billion flies can’t be wrong” line he gave to TVNewser last week. Olbermann went on to say that O’Reilly never tries to refute the things Keith says he does but instead goes to the ratings. “That’s because the only things we’ve smeared O’Reilly with are his own quotes. To borrow another phrase, when you’re as guilty as he is, change the subject.”
- He then turned his attention to Gibson and his comments about people following “the wrong religion”. Before I saw tonight’s segment on the replay (having been tipped off to it after the original broadcast) I read the Olbermannwatch article on the first time Gibson made the Worst Person In The World list over this issue…
Ann Coulter was the runner-up, but John Gibson was “worst” because he dared to suggest that murderous terrorists might be following the “wrong religion”. Picking up on a smear from a Soros website, Keith Olbermann accused John Gibson of “intolerance”.
Yes, I know I’ve said many times I never pay attention to that site but research is research and sometimes you have to do things you normally wouldn’t do in order to accomplish that. Anyway, after reading the article I was under the impression that this whole thing was about terrorism and Muslims after reading Olbermannwatch. However it turns out that isn’t the case at all. Olbermann played the Gibson radio segment, apparently in context (the clip ran for a good minute with Gibson and the radio personality going back and forth and the money quote of “the wrong religion” came near the end so I don’t see how it could be argued that it was taken out of context), and not once was terrorism, terrorists, or Muslims mentioned. According to the audio clip, the subject was all about intolerance of Christianity. So I have no idea what Olbermannwatch was getting at with terrorism. Maybe muddying the issue deliberately to make Olberman look bad? It wouldn’t surprise me any…
After the clip was done Olbermann made more remarks about Gibson and his comments, a portion of which Crooks and Liars documented…
It is awfully painful. Whether he thinks me insincere or not, I really did like Gibbie. Hard working here, always there to cover a shift or help out in any way he could. Now, instead, he’s denying he said some truly despicable things…things that were recorded for posterity. And worse, he’s now trying to blame these hateful things on me. Ordinarily when someone gets caught saying something as intolerant as this, their choices are a) to apologize, b) to resign, or c) to make sure there’s no tape and to lie their way out of it. John, unfortunately, chose d) blame it on somebody else.
The audio clip is the definitive answer, and I would hope John would now have the self-respect to acknowledge what he said, and to leave the airwaves for good. Because, between the remark and denial he has, sadly, forfeited his right to stay here.
Crooks and Liars has the video of the entire segment with the Gibson audio clip…
Yes, the whole mythology about taking the quotation out of context was always a ruse…but then again, I caught the anti-Olbermann site a couple weeks ago pretending Olbermann was quoting someone when that obviously wasn’t the case.
Comment by moi-meme — December 28, 2005 @ 2:17 am
I take full responsibility for that OW analysis linking the Gibson quote to terrorism. There was more to the discussion than the portion Media Matters segmented out, and there was talk of terrorism that they did not reprint. Because of that it’s not the strongest argument that can be made in opposition to Olbermann’s interpretation; it’s just one that’s not easy to demonstrate with only a minute from the interview. It was to this theme of terrorism that Gibson was apparently referring with his otherwise inexplicable reference that people should “behave”.
I still think the major argument, and the one I should have emphasized then (and have since) is Olbermann’s assumption that religious believers should believe that all religions are valid, or else they are intolerant. In fact, few believers accept such a notion, any more than believers in democracy and freedom think that it’s perfectly fine to do away with elections and install a king.
It was particularly bizarre tonight, right after he played the part of the quote he didn’t play before, where Gibson says it’s the American way to tolerate other beliefs, then goes on to say, see, that makes him even MORE intolerant.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 3:12 am
Why on earth would anyone would go to so much trouble to attack a competing network? This is beyond belief!
Is Olbermann still after Fox because of the “War on Christmas”? Then why didn’t he also go after his co-workers, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, who ALSO reported on the same subject?
Why doesn’t he go after Lou Dobbs, whose seems to only report on the penetration of illegal aliens into the U.S.?
Comment by Missy — December 28, 2005 @ 8:36 am
Boy oh boy, I knew this segment from last night’s show was going to show up here…and I thought “Katie bar the door!”
First, I must commend Spud for actually going to Olbermannwatch and seeing for himself exactly what kind of lies the site is attempting to perpetuate about Keith Olbermann. You’re right: sometimes you just have to see something for yourself. And now you see how they twist the truth in order to smear Olbermann. Thank you.
As for Johnny Dollar, first, I want to thank you for admitting that this smear came directly through you and courtesy of you. At least you have admitted that much.
Now. First. I need to bring up again this whole issue of why only people who believe in religions other than Christianity need to “behave.” Why, Johnny, do you believe that only Muslims engage in terrible behavior like terrorism? Have you never heard of the Crusades? Have you never heard of the Spanish Inquisition or its relatives? Have you never heard of the many, many times throughout history that so-called “Christians” (yes, Nazis among them!) have slaughtered people of other religions in the name of promoting THEIR religion as “the only right religion”? Has it not ever occurred to you how arrogant and horrible that is? And that Christians, whether they exist as a majority or a minority in any country, need to “behave” just as much as Muslims or Jews or Hindus or anyone else needs to “behave” if the world is to be a civilized place? And that to imply anything else is to be extremely patronizing and to treat the non-Christian religions of the world like poor stepchildren in relation to Christianity, and to hold its followers above the world alone as singular in their ability to follow their religion without misusing its tenets as a rationale for attacking and killing nonbelievers?
Now. You say that “I still think the major argument, and the one I should have emphasized then (and have since) is Olbermann’s assumption that religious believers should believe that all religions are valid, or else they are intolerant.” I would argue that Olbermann is saying no such thing. What he is saying is that regardless of what they personally believe, people in a civilized society have no right going around telling other people that their religion is “wrong.” Religion is a matter of FAITH, Johnny. There is no “absolute right and wrong” about it. What people BELIEVE is what they BELIEVE. There is no way to “prove” once and for all that this religion is “right” and that one is “wrong.” And indeed, religious belief would hold no value if every tenet of a religion could be proven empirically true. If something can be proven empirically true, where is the need for belief and faith without proof that it is true?
This being the case, it simply makes no sense to tell others that their religion is “wrong.” One can believe up one side and down the other than one’s religion is the path to salvation, yet that gives one no right to tell someone else he is on a surefire path to hell because he is not following your beliefs. Yes, you may believe that, and you have a right to believe that. But if you say that to the person’s face, as a fact…then, my friend, you are exhibiting RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. And you are exhibiting RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE if you insist on persisting in the notion that people following your own religion, simply because it is your religion or they are the majority in your country or whatever, possess the potential to “misbehave” and become marauders and murderers and terrorists, whereas people who belong to your religion do not–therefore, the people who belong to other religions will only be “tolerated” by YOUR religion so long as they “behave.”
Believers have the right to believe what they believe. But if they believe someone else’s religion is “wrong,” their right to say so, in a truly tolerant society, ends at the other person’s ears.
THAT is what Olbermann is trying to say, Johnny. That is all.
And Spud and Johnny, I thank you both for sticking to the substance of the debate. I am sure this post will be followed by a hundred “Oh, that Dopeyman is so pathetic, he has such low ratings who cares” posts and even by an announcement from Fox (how can they resist after such a great hole has been blown in them) claiming that they feel terribly sorry for Olbermann, pathetic career failure that they claim he is, and that they “wish him well.” But at least the two of you stuck to the essence of the argument. It’s very nice to see that.
Comment by tanne — December 28, 2005 @ 8:49 am
Oh, and Missy, don’t expect Fox to be Olbermann’s only targets. They never have been. They’re just one of many. He calls out hypocrisy from many places. Just wait.
And, Johnny…if you can see now why what you did to twist Olbermann’s words was wrong, an apology for helping Olbermannwatch distort what he said would be really nice to see from you.
Comment by tanne — December 28, 2005 @ 8:55 am
With a little bit of effort and the assistance of Google, you can find the transcripts for all of MSNBC’s primetime shows on their website. This prevents having to resort to Johnny Dollar’s extremely dubious interpretation of the “facts” as evidenced above. Let this serve as a lesson to you all–don’t rely upon certain individual’s interpretation of events, look to the transcript (or video or audio) of the actual source. That’s what journalists do, at least good ones. And that’s exactly what Olbermann did last night to skewer Gibson on his own petard.
There’s nothing like quoting someone else’s words back at them, especially when they claim they didn’t say them or that they were taken out of context. The context was perfectly clear from the extended clip that Olbermann ran last night what Gibson was saying and what he meant. However, Gibson didn’t have the integrity to admit he said it, and instead chose to use his own show to slam Olbermann and claim that Olbermann was misquoting him. The real test of character for this great defender of Christianity and all things Christmas will be to see how he reacts to this latest volley by Olbermann.
Will Gibson now finally admit he tried to weasle his way out of this? That he in fact lied when he said he was misquoted? Will he admit that he in fact said what we know now he said and that what he said was exactly what he meant as quoted by Olbermann? Or will he, in typical Fox fashion, claim that this is some sort of assault on him, on Christianity, motherhood, apple pie, and his rights as a true American?
And will Johnny Dollar actually admit that Gibson LIED about being misquoted? That his words were, in fact, NOT taken out of context? Will he go back and correct the misinterpretation (I’m being generous here) of his initial “reporting” about what Gibson said and what Olbermann said about Gibson on that original edition of the “Worst Person in the World” segment? Will he correct all of his posts on Olbermannwatch just like this that play fast and loose with the facts and rely upon his interpretation of what Olbermann said instead of what was actually said and meant by them? Somehow, I doubt it.
I don’t anticipate either issuing apologies or correcting their misstatements, misinterpretations, and flat-out lies. And that, you see, would be what seperates real journalists from those who have agendas and twist and distort the truth to suit those agendas.
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 9:50 am
tanne and Mia2, I often felt that you were one and the same person. But that doubt has now disappeared.
Comment by Missy — December 28, 2005 @ 10:14 am
I think you need to reread what Gibson. You can find the transcript at MediaMatters.
When Gibson makes the statement about a “wrong religion” he is responding to Parshall’s statement that the Judeo Christian God commanded total allegiance to him.
Gibson states that this theological question is “probably a bit over my head” but “IF” someone has to answer for following a “wrong” religion (Parshall’s thesis) then they’ll answer to God (not Gibson or Parshall).
Olbermann has compared these statements to the beliefs of Islamic terrorists! The are the opposite!
Olbermann concludes that Gibson’s remarks (beliefs…) have essentially forfeited his right to the airwaves.
Who’s the tolitarian here?
Parhsall: “And number two, I have to tell you, I don’t know when they held this election and decided that tolerance was a transcendent value. I serve a God who, with the finger of fire, wrote He would have no other gods before Him. And He doesn’t tolerate sin, which is why He sent His son to the cross. But all of a sudden now, we jump up and down and celebrate the idea of tolerance. I think tolerance means accommodation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean acquiescence or wholehearted acceptance.”
Gibson: “No, no, no. And if you figure that, listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me. We know who they’re going to have to answer to.”
Parshall: “Right.”
Gibson: “And that’s fine. Let’em. But in the meantime, as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 10:18 am
As you can see from the transcript, Gibson was anything but judgemental about the rightness or wrongness of certain religions, responding to Parshall’s thesis essentially by saying that IF there are wrong ones, then the adherents answer to God NOT to society. Society only call to believers is that they not persecute each other.
And with that I’ll address the question presented here about the definition of tolerance.
Tolerance is NOT concluding that ‘your myth is as good as my myth’. Most religions and their holy books assert that theirs is the way of “truth” To believe otherwisse contradicts the religious text and precepts. You cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus is the Messiah and believe he was merely a good man or prophet.
What you can do, and what Gibson’s point was to do, is not beat up, blow-up, discriminate against, people who do not hold your religious faith.
It’s the height of irony that Olbermann essentially accused Gibson of heresy and wanted Gibson barred from his choice of profession.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 10:30 am
Can’t you just picture Olbermann waking up early to see if any blogs picked up his dribble? It’s a very sad, sad situation with him, and Spud is enabling his illness.
Comment by Caroline S. — December 28, 2005 @ 10:33 am
Gee, thank you all for your support!
But seriously, I just have a few points to make then you can have at me. I don’t believe the original characterization of Gibson’s remark as referencing terrorism is false or a lie. It was my interpretation based on parts of the discussion not represented in the one-minute clip. It is impossible to know what was in his mind when he said it, so neither you nor I can say for sure. I can’t claim it’s the definitive interpretation, and no one else can prove it was a misinterpretation. Olbermann’s shorthand description of Gibson’s reaction was, he says he didn’t say it. But Gibson specifically referred to things he didn’t say OR were taken out of context. There is a difference, and full context is not necessarily revealed by a one-minute selective edit.
Olbermann originally suggested that Gibson was trumpeting his own religion as the one true religion. I don’t get that at all from Gibson’s quote, and that suggestion is probably the most serious mischaracterization in the entire controversy.
I think the more important issue is that it doesn’t matter if he was talking about terrorists or not. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see the evil in someone suggesting that people who are following a wrong religion will have to answer to God, but here on earth we should be tolerant of their beliefs. There are thousands of religions out there, each one teaching something different. Since they cannot all be correct, logic dictates that some of them must be…wrong. Gibson says fine, if some of them are wrong, they’ll have to deal with that in the afterlife, not here on earth, where we show tolerance to people we disagree with. I’m sorry, I just don’t see the horribleness of that quote, whether he was talking about terrorists or not.
Finally, a word about the O’Reilly portion of Olbermann’s attack, where he ridicules O’Reilly for bringing up ratings instead of rebutting the substance of what was said. Fact is, when Olbermann has been proven wrong about his attacks on O’Reilly, to the point of posting a video of what O’Reilly actually said, Olbermann has still refused to correct his false reportage or apologize. Even when the error has been personally brought to his attention. I don’t know who he thinks he’s kidding with this latest line, but it ain’t me.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 10:34 am
Watch Johnny Dollar spin like a top! Wow–this is more fun than watching Olbermann blast the hypocrites and liars that are Fox News!
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 11:02 am
But that is Olbermann’s point. Following his ‘logic’, the only way you can conlude that the faith of certain sects within Islam are “wrong” is if the adherents act upon these beliefs. And then it’s the action that can be termed “wrong”. Not the doctrine.
To come to any other conclusion means you are “THINKING” (as opposed to acting…) like a terrorist.
Go figger…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 11:02 am
Mia,
If you can interpret Gison’s words as being intolerant then “spin” isn’t the proper word for you. Space cadet is more adequate.
“No, no, no. And ***IF you figure that [ believe Parshall’s argument], listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head [you’re getting away from my point, Janet] but I would think ***IF somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the wrong religion [Parshall’s point NOT Gibson’s], they’re not going to have to answer to me. [Or you Janet…] We know who they’re going to have to answer to.” [God]
My only wish is that Gibson HAD made a point about the fallaciousness of defining tolerance as a demand that people of faith believe that all religions are “truth”.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 11:16 am
Good Grief! How can anyone take K.O. seriously? I tried to watch him last night for a few minutes, and he started that awful Puppet Show for Dummies. I was quickly gone.
So if people continue to watch that clown while he collects grievances, they will have to answer to themselves.
Keith O. - Worst Person in the World.
Comment by Cara — December 28, 2005 @ 11:17 am
Both Bill & Keith are bloviating blowhards not worth all the ink wasted on them in the previous, looooong winded commentary.
Comment by Roger C. — December 28, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
This is so over the top. Shouldn’t this blog report on actual cable news, and not attacks by attention starved hosts?
Comment by Mia — December 28, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
When someone devotes a whole segment to another news channel’s talent it’s news…whether it’s quality news is open to interpretation though…
And Johnny, if what you say is true that Gibson was responding to Parshall’s thesis, he should have added a disclaimer that he doesn’t believe that. He’s been around the biz long enough to spot a Pandora’s Box when he sees one. When Bill Bennet made that abortion for black people comment he at least parsed his comments by saying that it was an extreme example and in my eyes that was enough to get him off the hook. Gibson didn’t give himself an out at all.
I have no idea whether Gibson believes there’s a wrong religion or not but he certainly hasn’t done much to dig himself out of the hole he put himself in. And by just blaming Olbermann for misquoting/mischaracterizing his comments and then attacking him, without properly explaining himself in a way that makes his defense iron clad such that non-partisans who hadn’t made up their mind would give him the benefit of the doubt…which probably doesn’t include most of the commentors on this thread, he left the door wide open for Olbermann to run with the tape and make Gibson look like even worse than he already did.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
Spud,
The point is you shouldn’t have to parse your every statement and give loyalty oaths to the ideological tenets of spiteful sportscasters in order to protect yourself from being mischaracterized on national television.
Gibson is not guilty until he proves himself innocent. It’s up to Olbermann to prove the hyperbolic charge that Gibson has the same thinking of Islamic terrorists. He can’t with Gibson’s words and he can’t with the the theological argument he attempted to make against Parshall’s statements.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 12:50 pm
Spud, JG MAY have been just responding to Parshall’s thesis. That wasn’t my point, it was Cecelia’s, who apparently read more closely and carefully Gibson’s comments than either I or Olbermann did. I do agree with you that this kind of on-air attack is certainly fodder for a cable news blog. It’s not something that happens every day of the week–except, maybe, on Countdown.
I also agree that JG could mount a better defense, but I suspect he’s probably just ticked off at KO for accusing him of beliefs (e.g. that JG claims his own is the one true religion) that he never said. Since KO won’t correct his own mistakes even when there are tapes that show HIM to be wrong (e.g. the insults at O’Reilly about election night ratings), it’s ironic that he’s now browbeating JG for something KO himself is guilty of.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 12:55 pm
Johnny, you and Spud are dead wrong.
I think it’s to Gibson’s credit that he didn’t attempt to make a theological argument of yea or nay to Parshall’s statements.
No, the person who launced a theological rebuttal of Parshall, was Olbermann. A ridiculous and illogical one.
Why should Gibson have to publicly declare his religious beliefs? If Gibson DOES believe that Christianity is the one true religion, isn’t that the sort of faith-based doctrinal tenet that Olbermann demands equal time for in the market place of religious beliefs? Isn’t a public doctrinal litmus test the very thing that Olbermann would choke on if it were demanded of…say…anyone but a Fox News employee?
Olbermann is NOT merely a clown. His makeup is far more malevolent than that.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 1:32 pm
GIBSON: And that’s fine. Let ‘em. But in the meantime, as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.
He’s essentially saying that he agrees Christianity is the right religion, to everyone else your religion is wrong, but as long as you behave we’ll just deal with you, even though your religion is wrong. That’s not tolerance. He is specifically declaring Christianity as the right religion here, all others being wrong.
Anyone who is trying to say otherwise is just trying to spin gibson’s way out of this.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
Read it again, Carnack…. the discussion was about Christianity as the religion of the MAJORITY.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
I’m an evangelical and was upset with Gibson a few months ago, when he referred to God as “he, or she, or whatever…” (or something very close to that). From that statement, I inferred that he was NOT Christian at all.
Olbermann sure knows how to get attention, doesn’t he? There have been far more important topics posted to this board as of late, and they’ve received little or no attention. But we’re up to 25 comments or so on this topic?
What’s the expression, there’s no such thing as bad publicity? Anyway, I think Olbermann is truly losing it; I have NEVER heard of anyone behaving in such a way towards a competitor.
Comment by Missy — December 28, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
So let’s follow Johnny Dollar’s argument here shall we? If Olbermann won’t correct the “mistake” that Dollar swears up and down he made regarding O’Reilly it therefore makes Gibson’s flat-out lying okay???? Hmmm. Interesting theory. Sorry it won’t wash in the real world.
And no, to whomever claimed that Tanne and I are the same person, we aren’t. Imagine that–two erudite and intelligent people posting here who don’t agree with the Fox fan club. I guess it blows your little minds that there might actually be more than two of us here. I don’t know who Tanne is, but I like her and the way she thinks.
And I never got into the theology of what Gibson stated, that’s Tanne. I’m more into Gibson’s lying about what he said. And of course, Dollar’s attempts to somehow make that acceptable because he CLAIMS that Olbermann won’t retract an “error” he made about O’Reilly. My guess is that Olbermann won’t retract it because no such error was ever made, something to which Dollar should be well familiar with, because as we all know oh so very well, he, nor Fox, or anyone on Fox EVER makes a mistake or lies about being WRONG.
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Oh, and Christianity as the majority–so that makes it okay to dictate to everyone else what should be okay and what shouldn’t be okay? That religious intolerance is alright–and by the way, this is the same exact attitude the “terrorists” have–that there religon is the one and only true religion that got us into 9/11 to begin with. But hey, don’t let that stop you from continuing to blur the lines of the real argument here. But might I suggest that you all might want to do some investigation about what the most widely practiced religions in this WORLD are, before you make such sweeping statements in support of Gibson’s statements. Of course, since you all are the very same people who believe that majority ratings (and votes) don’t entitle the rest of us to have opinions, why am I not surprised the attitude is the same re religion?
BTW, Olbermann in fact wrote a very moving blog about his own religious faith earlier this year. I know it shatters your prejudices and belief systems to think he might be a Christian, but lo and behold he is. Seems he’s actually READ his Bible instead of using it to bash people over the head with like some–wow, what a concept!
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
“Why should Gibson have to publicly declare his religious beliefs?”
Ummmm….because he wrote a book about the War On Christmas and pandered the book every day for the past month on his show? That alone puts his religious beliefs on the playing field.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Mia2,
If it can be called a “lie” for Gibson to have defended himself by saying he was “misquoted” instead of more accurately saying his comments were misconstrued or edited, then so be it.
But I’d wager Gibson would rather live with that “lie” than the one Olbermann has maliciously made, with no evidence, about his “friend” Gibson having the same mindset as Islamic terrorists who seek to kill those who who do not adhere to their religion.
You call yourself erudite…I’ll take YOUR word for it… Now get a sense of perspective…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
Spud,
Nonsense! There are Jews like Donald Feder and Michael Medved who argue that there is a culture war on Christmas.
How you can think that this means you have publicly defend yourself from every eroneous and illogical charge by declaringn your doctrinal beliefs is beyond me.
That having to do such a thing is PRECISELY the sort of litmus test of faith-oriented beliefs that Olbermann is against, is particular ironic!
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
Mia2,
By your own standards, you’ve lied to us. You are NOT erudite.
If you were, you’d read the transcript of John Gibson’s remarks and you’d ascertain that the discussion wasn’t about the Christian majority telling people of other faiths what to believe. The only standard Gibson felt the majority should hold minority to– is civility.
Now you can argue the history of Christianity and the non-civil behavior of its adherents, but that nothing to do with the charge Olbermann made about Gibson essentially having the mindset of terrorists (who seek to kill dissenters).
However, since YOU have a concern over the conduct of Christians, your inteerest most certainly would apply to Olbermann, who as you’ve said, calls himself one. It’s hardly representative of Christian character to accuse someone of having the mentality of a killer simply because you don’t like their employer…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
“My guess is that Olbermann won’t retract it because no such error was ever made”
You guessed wrong. There is a tape. It wasn’t just an error; it was a smarmy personal attack, based on something that wasn’t true. If Olbermann believes Gibson should resign for not “admitting” something or apologizing, then why doesn’t that standard apply to Olbermann?
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
Johnny,
Olbermann doesn’t just believe that Gibson should resign over “not admitting something or apologizing”. Olbermann argues that Gibson should resign over what Olbermann maintains are Gibson’s views. Views that, if they exist at all, could only be described as views based on religious doctrine.
So Olbermann is simultaneously arguing that it is intolerant to suggest that all faiths are not the same, while advocating that someone else be drummed out their chosen profession for theirs…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
Dollar & Cecelia–it is your interpretation of what Olbermann said that is fault. Of course the two of you manage to find fault with every single thing he says, as witnessed by Dollar’s posts at Olbermannwatch. Talk about distortions and misinterpretations–that site does nothing but. Yet of course, Dollar never, ever has found a single error or misstep by any Fox personality. I don’t know what rich fantasy world the two of you live in, but some of us prefer to live in the reality-based community.
And does someone want to tell me what being an evangelical has got to do with anything? I’m a born-againer too but I guess we must read from different Bibles. Or maybe I just have better reading and listening comprehension skills than some of you seem to.
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
What has Olbermann said that I’ve misinterpreted?
Olbermann hasn’t accused John Gibson of suggesting that there is a right and a wrong religious faith?
Olbermann hasn’t characterized such a view as being intolerant?
Olbermann hasn’t stated that Gibson has the mindset of religious fundamentalists who want to behead and blow-up dissenters?
Olbermann didn’t advocate that Gibson be fired for holding the views Olbermann accuses Gibson of holding?
Are you suggesting that I’m as big a fan of Fox News as Johnny? If so, how have you arrived at that conclusion?
Too, how have you arrived at the conclusion that I’m religious at all?
Finally, are you suggesting that you have some concept of Biblical truth that Johnny and I have missed?
Enlighten me on all this please.
As it stands, you’ve jumped to so many conclusions and made so many unbacked claims that you must be some sort of medium for the baleful spirit of Olbermann….
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
Cecelia your questions make little sense, since you’re assuming answers to them that would only delight you. However, it is quite obvious your answers are incorrect to all of them. Why don’t you read everything again said by both Gibson and Olbermann, because you have not understood a single thing that was said by either one of them, but rather have just spun what they have both said to meet your personal agenda.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 5:26 pm
For example…
“Olbermann didn’t advocate that Gibson be fired for holding the views Olbermann accuses Gibson of holding?”
Read again please…
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
AnonymousHere says:
“Olbermann didn’t advocate that Gibson be fired for holding the views Olbermann accuses Gibson of holding?”
Read again please… “‘
AnonymousHere, since this is the only thing resembling a specific in your charge that I’ve misunderstood everything Gibson and Olbermann have said, I’ll reply to it.
Here’s a link to TVNewers with the transcript of Olbermann’s remarks last night:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermann_calls_on_gibson_to_acknowledge_what_he_said_resign_30037.asp#more
Olbermann said:
“Ordinarily when somebody gets caught saying something as intolerant as this, their choices are a) to apologize, b) to resign, or c) to make sure there’s no tape and try to lie their way out of it.
John chose “d” — blame it on somebody else.
The audio clip is the definitive answer, and I would hope John would now have the self-respect to acknowledge what he said, and to leave the airwaves for good.
Because, between the remark and the denial, he has — sadly — forfeited his right to stay here.”
Olbermann has essentially stated that Gibson cannot stay on the air (with the views that Olbermann has accused him of holding) UNLESS he RECANTS those views (apologizes) or “lie his way out of them”. So Gibson must recant, or lie, or resign over his imputed theological viewpoint.
There’s tolerance Olbermann style….
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
I asked:
Olbermann hasn’t accused John Gibson of suggesting that there is a right and a wrong religious faith?
Olbermann hasn’t characterized such a view as being intolerant?
Olbermann hasn’t stated that Gibson has the mindset of religious fundamentalists who want to behead and blow-up dissenters?
Because Olbermann stated:
“Otherwise… that’s really the whole shebang right there. That phrase “wrong religion” actually sounds worse in context, doesn’t it?
It’s the same kind of misunderstanding and perversion of religion to which we react in horror when we see it in terrorists who have twisted religions for their own purposes.”
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
Is this for real? Guys, go outside and enjoy the day.
Comment by Steve — December 28, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
Steve,
I’m under a tornado watch…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
He clearly says “between the remark and the denial.”
“Olbermann hasn’t accused John Gibson of suggesting that there is a right and a wrong religious faith?”
And that is exactly what John Gibson did. Now why don’t you go back and read what John Gibson says on the program. Are you still denying that or have you come to terms to accept that? Gibson is declaring all other religions to be wrong, but saying we’ll just deal with you even though you’re wrong as long as you behave. That is not tolerance!
Then Gibson denys that he says all of that! Please Cecelia your spinning is starting to make my head go dizzy. Clearly Gibson’s words speak for themselves, no matter what Olbermann has said.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
Ok people, you’ve all had your say…time to dial it back a bit. You all know you aren’t going to convince anyone of being right or wrong on this one.
BTW, Johnny I don’t know where you get the “wasn’t true” part of the characterization of Gibson’s comments. What part wasn’t true? That he didn’t say them or that they don’t mean what Olbermann says they mean? If the latter, how do you know? Gibson hasn’t come out and refuted it as far as I can tell…he’s only issued what would fall under the heading of “non-denial denials”.
I’m not trying to bait you, I’m genuinely curious how you came to the conclusion that it’s not true given the lack of evidence…
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 6:15 pm
Anon,
Olbermann INITIATES his thoughts on Gibson’s professional future… by saying that this view (the one Olbermann has attributed to Gibson) alone is enough to leave Gibson with only two choices other than resignation from from his profession—– Recant or lie.
In other words, the view that Olbermann has assigned Gibson is reason enough for resignation.
As to what Gibson said to Parshall, I’ve already parsed it. Now it’s up to you to go back and read that and rebut.
Anon, I look forward to that.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
Olbermann not only twisted Gibson’s words which were clearly not intolerant, but made a deliberate leap to paint him as some sort of Christian terrorist.
“Gibson: “No, no, no. And if you figure that, listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me. We know who they’re going to have to answer to.”
What is wrong with that? Olbermann is pushing some multiculturalism view that everyone is right, lets just kumbaya thru life.
Comment by Ripclawe — December 28, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
Spud,
I think the Spanish Inquisition used just such reasoning…
Perhaps if Olbermann threatens Gibson with an Iron Maiden…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
Somwhere in a dungeon at MSNBC..
Olbermann (dressed in black robe and hood) John, do you deny that part of your religious views are that Christianity is the one true religion…
Gibson– (stretched to a height of 7 feet) Lord, forgive him, the poor guys ratings suck…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 6:39 pm
DOMINUS IESUS declared August 6th,2000 by the Cardinal Ratzinger better known as Pope Benedict XVI.
“This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.93
The Vatican and the Pope are the worst people in the world. Olbermann is stepping into an area he really does not want to go.
Comment by Ripclawe — December 28, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
Cecelia, your comment in post #46 is priceless!!!!!!!
Comment by Missy — December 28, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
“What is wrong with that? Olbermann is pushing some multiculturalism view that everyone is right, lets just kumbaya thru life.”
I take it then that you subscribe to the notion that all religions are in fact not created equal, that there can be a “wrong religion” and by extrapolation therefore there is a “right religion”?
See that’s the problem as I see it. I don’t think Gibson thought out what he was going to say before he said it. By using the term “wrong religion” at all (whether he believes there is such a thing is beside the point…it’s what he said that is all we have to go on), Gibson by default casts this whole argument in an advesarial tone. If there’s a “wrong religion” then a) all religions are not equal, and b) there is a “right religion”.
I think that’s what has set so many people off about Gibson’s comments. We don’t like being told that maybe our religion ain’t as good or as real or as legitimate as someone else’s. And we don’t want to be judged like that.
Gibson’s words, whether unintentional or not or poorly thought out or not, strike at the very heart of that because the implication is there that there is a “right religion” and a “wrong religion”.
Do I think Olberman’s characterization of Gibson over the top? Sure. But the fundamental issue still remains one of tolerance and Gibson’s words, whether he is tolerant of others or not in his own daily life, raise the spectre of intolerance by casting religion in absolute terms (wrong religion/right religion). So while I think Olberman is overdramatizing and overhyping this story, he’s doing it from a concrete foundation.
This is really a lose/lose proposition for Gibson. I don’t think at this point he can properly re-characterize his original comments in such a way that he can come out smelling like a rose. There’s been too much stink raised.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 7:03 pm
Spud, my “wasn’t true” post was regarding a post made regarding a post by me about an Olbermann comment about O’Reilly. Whew! The sequence by comment number was 20-25-31.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
Maybe I’m clueless, maybe I’m old fashioned, I don’t know… What is wrong with believing that one religion is correct and by default another religion is wrong? The very nature of having a religious faith seems to dictate that you believe it and it’s doctrines - yes? To be Chirstian is to believe that salvation comes from Christ and Christ alone - yes?
So, why should someone who is paid to voice his opinions be slammed for voicing his opinion?
Comment by daubermaus — December 28, 2005 @ 7:28 pm
“I take it then that you subscribe to the notion that all religions are in fact not created equal, that there can be a “wrong religion” and by extrapolation therefore there is a “right religion”?
Personally not very religious, but I do recognize that people of different religions hold a passive or aggressive view that their religion is the right one.
The problem is Gibson is just stating the obvious, if somehow you are the “wrong” religion, you will answer to God, the same view that the Vatican holds. To treat that statement as something akin to an Islamic terrorist and shows a lack of knowledge on Olbermann’s part.
“But the fundamental issue still remains one of tolerance and Gibson’s words, whether he is tolerant of others or not in his own daily life, raise the spectre of intolerance by casting religion in absolute terms (wrong religion/right religion).”
Nothing wrong with thinking like that as long as its not taken to the extremist point of actively hunting down other religions such as the beheadings of Christian girls in Sulawesi. You can think of your religion in absolute terms and be tolerant, even celebrate other religions. Olbermann makes the mistake in trying to cast Gibson in terms that most people agree with as if he scored a point against him.
All it did was show Olbermann’s lack of understanding of religion in general.
Comment by Ripclawe — December 28, 2005 @ 7:29 pm
Spud,
Gibson is NOT accountable for what he did not say. He is only accountable for what he said.
We all hold all sorts of thoughts that we never publicly express— my brother-in-law is a jerk…. my co-worker is too fat….Baptists are all a bunch of hypocrites…
These are our private thoughts and unless we make them public, they are no one’s business.
Example:
Olbermann gives an interview on MSNBC. During the interview he makes a few comments about this boss. Later John Gibson accuses Olbermann of dissing his boss.
Now in his heart of hearts, Olbermann criticises his boss rather frequently. He’s not the biggest fan of his boss… But he would NEVER do it publicly and he knows that was the farthest thing from his intention during the interview.
Question– Why is Olbermann now obligated to prove himself innocent of publicly dissing his boss by either 1. Expressing feelings he would never willingly express publicly in the first place or 2) lie about those feelings.
ANSWER: He isn’t.
However, the thought police will always see this differently…
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 7:52 pm
Thank you, Missy!
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 7:53 pm
You know, it really amuses me to go to a job and work all day and then come back to see what kind of nonsense some people are spewing about Keith Olbermann and his beliefs while I was out.
Somehow, in the book of some people, Olbermann comes out as the intolerant, evil, torturing madman who won’t allow people their religious beliefs! It would be laughable if it weren’t such a pathetic example of illogical reasoning at its worst.
I’m going to try to make this simple enough that even a child can understand it:
1. Olbermann said that Gibson said that people following “the wrong religion” would have to “answer” for it, but not to Gibson. He proved this by playing an audio tape of Gibson using those very words. That’s what is known as “empirical evidence.” Just as if you said that I just ate some chocolate, and I said “No, I didn’t eat any chocolate,” and you pumped my stomach and found a substance inside it that proved under chemical testing to be, indeed, CHOCOLATE. Gibson said the words, OK? Case closed!
2. Now, for the interpretation of the words. Olbermann then said that making this statement made Gibson as guilty of intolerance as any terrorist who uses his religion as a justification for going forth to kill “infidels.” Now, some of you seem to think this is terrible of him. You seem to think that stating the belief that one’s religion is “the right religion” and that all other religions are “wrong” is not the same as being a terrorist. Well, in action…no. But it is only a short leap between believing that one’s one religion is the only correct one, and stating such as a fact, to eventually reaching the decision that others who do not follow your religion must either be forced to agree with it and follow its tenets or be killed…either for being nonbelievers, or for being sinful in other ways. THAT’s what Olbermann is saying. You can agree or disagree, but you cannot make HIM the intolerant one. He never said people can’t be Christians (he is one himself). He DID imply that Christians have no business telling non-Christians that their religion is “wrong,” or requiring that they, but not Christians, “behave” in order to be tolerated.
Some so-called “Christians” over the centuries have justified to themselves such actions as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust. It all started with the decision that they were following the only “right” and “true” religion. It went from there to having to TELL others that their religion was the only “right” and “true” one. (To justify this, yes, they used the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”…which, as Olbermann pointed out, was directed at those who were already following and believing in the Hebrew God…not necessarily at the whole world.) From there came the next step: Go out and win converts. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but eventually for some people, attempted conversion wasn’t enough…and the modus operandi for them became “Convert or die.”
It doesn’t matter whether you’re Muslim, Jewish, Christian, what have you…to believe that “my religion is right and all others are wrong,” as opposed to saying “I believe my religion is right FOR ME and other people’s religions are right FOR THEM,” or “I believe my religion is right and others are wrong, but that’s my private belief and I have no right to force it on others, because none of us can prove whose religion is right anyway” is a dangerous path to go down. Why? Because it soon leads to “My religion is the only right one, and those who do not follow it deserve to BE KILLED BY ME.” It is from such roots that Islamic extremism and terrorism grows…and THAT, my friends, is why Olbermann is equating John Gibson’s Christian intolerance to the intolerance of Muslims who become terrorists and kill all those who don’t fall into line with their beliefs (and even some who do…collateral damage, you know).
I hope none of this was too hard for anyone to understand. Do I expect it to be ridiculed as long-winded? Yes. Do I expect some to accuse Olbermann of slippery-slope reasoning? Yes, and maybe he knows he will be…but that’s the chance he takes. If you want to accuse him of that, go ahead and accuse…but remember, he’s going on history, and history has proved that his slippery slope is awfully easy for people to slide down.
Do I expect yet more Olbermann-slammers to come out of the woodwork and whine lies about him, and slam him for his “stupidity” and his “low ratings”? Yes, because they don’t like his message and can’t find any other way to handle that but to attack him and call him “sorry” and “sad,” when they’re the sorry and sad ones. But it bothers me not one bit. People who tell the truth get slammed by those who don’t want to hear it. That’s just the way it is.
One thing that cannot be denied is this: Keith Olbermann sure has found the chink in the armor of Fox News…and it’s driving them, and their fans, absolutely CRAZY. (Look at all the posts on any subject concerning Olbermann and Fox personalities, compared to others!)
And all I can say about that is:
“IT’S ABOUT TIME!!”
Comment by tanne — December 28, 2005 @ 7:53 pm
Spud,
Tolerance is not logically defined as saying that every faith is as “true” as your faith regardless of any two particular faiths contradicting the other.
Tolerance is what John Gibson said it was– it’s allowing people to embrace the dogma they wish without discriminating against them, as long as they allow you to do the same.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
“Olbermann then said that making this statement made Gibson as guilty of intolerance as any terrorist who uses his religion as a justification for going forth to kill “infidels.” ”
I await with amusement then for Olbermann to go after the Vatican and the Pope. He mistakes religious conviction for religious intolerance. The slippery slope is not there and it is a shame Olbermann has to go that far to fake a point.
Comment by Ripclawe — December 28, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
tanne,
Read comment #8 and 9.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
Whether it’s right or not to say one religion is right and others wrong isn’t even so much the main point anymore. It’s just a matter that Gibson said that, which is now obvious. Gibson then denied that he said that, so he obviously must believe that it is perhaps wrong to say that. Then Olbermann played the audio showing that Gibson indeed said there was a right religion, others being wrong. Whether it’s right or wrong to say that fine, debate it, but there is no debate that Gibson lied about saying that himself, he did and it’s on tape. He knew he said it, he believed it was wrong to say it, and he tried covering up, that is Olbermann’s point, that perhaps he should have apologized instead.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
Anon,
Gibson did not say there was a Right religion or a wrong one.
When Gibson makes the statement about a “wrong religion” he is responding to Parshall’s statement that the Judeo Christian God commanded total allegiance to him.
Gibson states that this theological question is “probably a bit over my head” but “IF” someone has to answer for following a “wrong” religion (Parshall’s thesis) then they’ll answer to God (not Gibson or Parshall).
Gibson prefaced his remarks to Parshall’s observation on the 1st of the ten commandments, by saying, “No, no, no.”.
Gibson essentially said:
“No, no, no. And ***IF you figure that [ believe Parshall’s argument], listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head [you’re getting away from my point, Janet] but I would think ***IF somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the wrong religion [Parshall’s point NOT Gibson’s], they’re not going to have to answer to me. [Or you Janet…] We know who they’re going to have to answer to.” [God]
Transcript:
Parhsall: “And number two, I have to tell you, I don’t know when they held this election and decided that tolerance was a transcendent value. I serve a God who, with the finger of fire, wrote He would have no other gods before Him. And He doesn’t tolerate sin, which is why He sent His son to the cross. But all of a sudden now, we jump up and down and celebrate the idea of tolerance. I think tolerance means accommodation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean acquiescence or wholehearted acceptance.”
Gibson: “No, no, no. And if you figure that, listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me. We know who they’re going to have to answer to.”
Parshall: “Right.”
Gibson: “And that’s fine. Let’em. But in the meantime, as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
Cecelia you’re incorrect, as I’ve stated before, it’s this line, which you have yet to rebut, where he says there is a right religion, all others being wrong…
“Gibson: “And that’s fine. Let’em. But in the meantime, as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”
He is diminishing all other religions. He states we’re only doing it because of tradition, essentially even though other religions are wrong, as long as the people who follow them behave, even though they’re wrong we’ll just deal with them. That is what he says. “As long as they’re [people following wrong religion] civil and behave, we tolerate [them].
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 8:38 pm
“What is wrong with believing that one religion is correct and by default another religion is wrong? The very nature of having a religious faith seems to dictate that you believe it and it’s doctrines - yes? To be Chirstian is to believe that salvation comes from Christ and Christ alone - yes? So, why should someone who is paid to voice his opinions be slammed for voicing his opinion?”
Well now you’re arguing against Gibson himself because you are excusing Gibson’s remarks as ok because it’s part of Christianity and it’s okay to have an opinion and express it.
That isn’t what Gibson has been saying. He’s not embracing what he said. He’s apparently running away from it or at the very least ducking, dodging, and skirting the issue by changing the subject to Olbermann rather than properly address the issue once and for all.
“Tolerance is what John Gibson said it was– it’s allowing people to embrace the dogma they wish without discriminating against them, as long as they allow you to do the same.”
But from the recording I heard, he’s not doing that. He’s making a judgement that only one religion is right and the rest are wrong and he’s saying there will be a price to be paid if you don’t follow the right religion. Sounds like discriminatory language to me…
Like I said earlier, this is a lose/lose argument for Gibson. There are times when one can say something that no matter how many times or how hard one tries to clarify things, he still ends up not looking good. Like Kerry and his “I voted for the 95 million before I voted against it”…even though it was technically accurate and his defense was reasonably well thought out (in that the second version of the bill had been changed to the point that he couldn’t support it), it didn’t matter because the original quote framed things in such a way that no amount of damage control could correct it.
That’s what Gibson faces here. No amount of re-characterizing or explaining will undo the initial, original sting of the “wrong religion” comment for some people. He’s stuck with it like Geraldo is stuck with Al Capone’s vault and Howard Dean is stuck with “YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!”
And Gibson isn’t doing himself any favors by trying to push this all off on Olbermann and Media Matters rather than admit that what he said was probably poorly chosen words and explaining what he really meant.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 8:43 pm
Cecelia pointed it out before I did. Gibson was correct in stating his words were taken out of context by Olbermann who then used it to make Gibson out to be something he is not.
Comment by Ripclawe — December 28, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
“He’s making a judgement that only one religion is right and the rest are wrong”
No, I think you’re going a bridge too far with this. Maybe you think that what he thinks, but it certainly isn’t what he said.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 28, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
RipClawe, there is a fine line between Religious Conviction and Religious Intolerance. So fine that it’s frequently crossed by people whose blind faith in the former clouds their vision to the latter. I don’t want to single out the Fundamentalists on TV but I could compile a long list of Religious Intolerance in the name of Religious Conviction. And then there is the Vatican too.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
Come on Johnny it’s simple deduction. If you break this down into wrong and right religions there can only be one right religion. They differ too much from each other for there to be more than one right religion, if you are going to use those classifications.
What’s the alternative? If God is going to judge you based n whether you followed “the wrong religion” is there more than one wrong religion? Gibson doesn’t say. But it doesn’t make sense to me from a theological standpoint that Gibson could or would argue that if there is a wrong religion, that there’s only one wrong religion and furthermore that there could be more than one right religion.
Is this concrete proof that he’s arguring that all religions but one are wrong? No. But it’s a lot more than circumstantial evidence….
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
I agree with Spud. Gibson, in fact, is now saying he does believe it’s wrong to say that one religion is right and all others are wrong and he is trying to run away from what he originally said. He should have apologized rather than pretend he didn’t say that, which I actually think there is a fair chance one will come out soon.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
Or maybe I should say that he’s making what many people would interpret as a judgement that one religion is right and the rest are wrong because he doesn’t properly premise the argument and define the terms? That would be more fair.
Comment by Spud — December 28, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
Anon,
Gibson is responding to Parshall’s comment. He didn’t say WHEN other people have to face Yahweh who has demanded allegiance to himself (Parshall’s point). Gibson said IF they have to account for embracing the wrong religion it will be God they face not Me… or Parshall…or Bin Laden…. And he prefaced these remarks by saying “No, no, no…” and that they were now going off into a theological area that was over his head.
This is hideously filmsy evidence upon which to base the assertions against Gibson.
And as far as what Gibson said about other religions “behaving” the initial subject of the discussion was about the dynamics between the majority (of population) religion and those religions embrace by the minority.
Gibson wasn’t “diminishing” all other religions, other than stating the fact that they are not the majority religion. He went on to say that that the ONLY stipulation that the majority should put on minority religions is that they be civil.
That’s a far cry from the thinking of Osama Bin Laden….
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 9:00 pm
Gibson: “No, no, no. And if you figure that, listen, you know, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the [wrong] religion, [they’re] not going to have to answer to me. We know who [they’re] going to have to answer to.”
Gibson: “And that’s fine. Let’em. But in the meantime, as long as [they’re] civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”
He uses “they’re”, the same “they’re” taken from his statement before about people having to answer to God who are following a wrong religion. And then he uses “they’re” to refer both to people following the same religion and then makes the statement you mention about the minority religions being civil, saying they are one in one, the minority religions and the people who are following the wrong religions.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
Well, you would use “they’re” or ‘they are’ when you’ve cast your sentence in terms “somebody”. And “somebody” classfies as anyone.
You wouldn’t say “IF somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the [wrong] religion” WE’RE not going to have to answer to ME…. (they’ll answer to God.
It’s interesting that you have to prove Gibson’s words by contortions with pronouns but you can’t answer why Gibson would use the word “if”. Or why he would say “no, no, no” to Parshall. Or why he would tell her that they were getting off into a thelogical issue that was over his head.
Again, this is the filmiest sort of evidence to use in making a charge against ANYONE.
Shame on Olbermann and shame on you.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
“Olbermann concludes that Gibson’s remarks (beliefs…) have essentially forfeited his right to the airwaves.”
And Olbermann will never be called intolerant outside of his few critics online…
Comment by HH — December 28, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
HH,
No, Olbermann can always reside safe in the knowledge that he is unique among cable show hosts in his caliber of bomb throwing towards his professional competition.
Comment by Cecelia — December 28, 2005 @ 9:32 pm
Cecilla–you’ve proven time and time again what your opinion of Olbermann is on this very board. It’s your history, as well as Dollar’s which make you highly suspect in my book. It’s called evidence. Go look it up. All of you keep wandering away from the point here. Gibson said what he said, and yeah, he’s entitled to his opinion. But then he LIED when he said that Olbermann misquoted him about what he said and tried to weasle his way out of what he said. Instead of being a man and standing up and admitting he was wrong, he took the Fox-corporate approved policy out, personally attacking Olbermann and denying he said what he said. Journalists don’t deny, they are supposed to be in the business of being impartial. Not that ANY of you would understand that since so far as I can tell, none of you except Spud have actually had a paying job in journalism. Some of us have and we know what real journalists are and Gibson, while once a fine journalist, at some point decided to sell his soul to make bucks for the Fox corporate line. And one day he’ll find out from whatever God it is that he worships why that might not have been the best idea for him. As will some of you who attack others in the name of Christianity and want tolerance for your extreme views but seem to think that the rest of us aren’t entitled to express ours. Trust me, 20 years from now Olbermann will have a list of awards and credentials a mile long. O’Reilly and Gibson will be remembered for the way they ruined their own careers by being whores for Rupert Murdoch.
Comment by Mia2 — December 28, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
“Well, you would use “they’re” or ‘they are’ when you’ve cast your sentence in terms “somebody”. And “somebody” classfies as anyone.
You wouldn’t say “IF somebody is going to be, have to answer for following the [wrong] religion” WE’RE not going to have to answer to ME…. (they’ll answer to God.”
Of course not…but Gibson is saying “they’re” in the sense for the second part that the people following the wrong religion have to be civil. He is saying the people he is referring to in the first part that will have to answer to God can be dealt with as long as “they’re” civil.
If he says what you’re trying to say he said, then he would have stated, “we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, as long as they’re civil and behave, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”
I’m just trying to say that makes it even more clear that he is indicating there is a wrong religion. The first statement is clear enough, however. If someone is going to have to answer to God, it is presumably because he believes they are following the wrong religion. There has to be a wrong religion for someone to have to answer to God. And now he makes it obvious that he thinks it is wrong to state such a thing by trying to back away from it and pretend he didn’t say it.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 28, 2005 @ 9:34 pm
Well, I see that the same 6 lunatics are just running around in circles chasing their tails.
Comment by Staycee — December 28, 2005 @ 9:54 pm
Mia2,
At risk of putting forth a concept that is so over your head that you must pronounce it to be “spin”, how is it that my feelings toward Olbermann make me suspect, but yours towards FOX do not?
I care nothing for Fox and have never watched John Gibson. I wholeheartedly have agreed with Olbermann about Geraldo Riveria’s buffoonery and dislike Bill O’Reilly too, though not as obsessively as Olberman does.
As for “evidence”… I’ve parsed Gibson’s words in a perfectly reasonable manner that should give anyone pause before making an accusation against someone. Anyone… who truly cares about having solid evidence before they take a shot at someone…that is.
I’ve made a case to Spud that Gibson does not to defend feelings he says he did not express, by demands that he now clarify himself on a subject he never wanted to comment upon in the first place.
As for Gibson saying he was misquoted, I’ve argued that using the word misquoted rather than misconstrued is a small crime compared to a fellow professional taking you to task on national television on such a filmsy basis. If this charge was brough against John Roberts or Charles Gibson on such a basis, Olbermann wouldn’t give it the time a day.
But Gibson works for Fox and he wrote a book Olbermann doesn’t like. He’s also an easy target in that Rick Kaplan or Tim Russert won’t be issuing statements in his defense.
Oh, it’s all very easy for Olbermann, but it stinks to high heaven to anyone who cares.
Mia, I’ve put forth arguments and rebuttals. So far all you’ve managed to do is to repeat the same charges..again and again.
But then— that and your dislike for Fox are all the cards you hold.
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 7:46 am
Anon,
Gibson uses “they’re” because he’s responding to a statement from Parshall where she makes a distinction between the Judeo-Christian god and other gods.
Why would Gibson use ‘us’ or ‘we’ or ‘we’re’ knowing full well that Parshall means ‘them’ and ‘they’? As in people who do not follow the Judeo-Christian god, the god of the MAJORITY religion.
Gibson first makes a point about those of the majority religion being tolerant toward those of minority religions. And that the minority religion folks need to return that treatment in kind.
Parshall then injects the thought that “tolerance” is not defined as saying “my myth is equal to your myth”. In other words, she argues that majority Christians can be tolerant towards minority Muslims and Wiccans while thinking their beliefs are off track. And she argues this by saying that the Judeo-Christian god did not define tolerance as acknowledgement of the validity of other gods. She uses the 1st of the Ten Commandments to back this up.
Gibson, says, hey, we’re now getting into an area of theology that’s over my head, but IF you’re right, and IF there is a “wrong” religion then that person will answer to God (who is the ultimate judge of what’s true or not)…not to me (or you, Janet)… Gibson then goes back to original point by saying that the only stipulation that the Majority Religion should put on the Minority Religion is that they be civil.
Now get a clue, Anon and quit salivating over the damage that might be caused to someone, on such filmsy evidence as you have. And this simply because you don’t like the guy’s politics.
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 8:03 am
Actually, John Gibson didn’t just discribe himself as having been “misquoted”.
When expressing incredulousness at the hit-job that had been done on him, he said, “I find myself being misquoted OR THE ACTUAL WORDS I’ve said taken way way way out of context in order to build outrage against me…
Gibson ends by saying “Today one of my former colleagues repeated a misquote to justify saying some truly disgusting things about me. Condescendingly, he ’tisk tisked’ that he used to like me. I frankly doubt it. Otherwise, why would he be so willing to believe trash?”
Why? Because you work for FOX News and you wrote a book your “friend” hates and he wants to label you an extremist.
But then you knew that.
Transcript:
“I find myself being misquoted or the actual words I’ve said taken way way way out of context in order to build outrage against me…
Names like ‘fathead’ and the ‘worst something or other’ for things I really did not say…
Today one of my former colleagues repeated a misquote to justify saying some truly disgusting things about me. Condescendingly, he ’tisk tisked’ that he used to like me. I frankly doubt it. Otherwise, why would he be so willing to believe trash?”
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 8:57 am
And by doing so, John Gibson LIED about what Olbermann said about him. Cecelia, you’re not helping your position any at all by reminding people of that fact!
And Staycee…looks as if YOU are officially one of the “lunatics running around”! Thought you were “above the fray,” eh? Not if you had to comment on it you aren’t…
The burgeoning number of posts here continues to prove my point…that Olbermann is a smashing success at getting under the skin of Fox and its people and fans…thank GOD! (and I say that in all honesty!)
Comment by tanne — December 29, 2005 @ 9:09 am
Cecilla dear, if you want to be taken seriously here, you shouldn’t post at Johnny Dollars Olbermann hate site. You see, your comments there are read more widely than you think by posters here. That’s how I KNOW how you feel about Olbermann and where your political sympathies lie at, from your posts there, and here.
And Tanne again was dead on in her assessment. For someone who doesn’t come near O’Reilly’s ratings, Olbermann sure does seem to garner the lion’s share of the press doesn’t he? And the amount of time and effort that some of you spend bashing him. . . . wow, you either don’t have jobs or a personal life, or both. Really, your obsession with him doesn’t seem very healthy to me. You know if you ignored him, you might actually experience a decrease in your blood pressure and bile production. But you can’t stop can you? And you see, that’s what makes KO the winner here. Suckers.
Comment by Mia2 — December 29, 2005 @ 10:21 am
Mia2,
Your premise is that my dislike for Obermann makes suspect my arguments against his treatment of Gibson.
Is that the best you can do? You certainly haven’t challenged the case I’ve made. You’ve just declared me biased.
Well, then let me restate my original question to you. If my opinions aren’t valid because of my bias, what about yours? What about Olbermann’s? Both you and he dislike Fox News. Olbermann has taken issue with Gibson’s “war on Christmas” issue. By your logic that alone ought to make his case against Gibson suspect. You certainly haven’t used Olbermann’s arguments about the pronouns Gibons used (as Anon has done), in order to attempt a cogent argument against my case. All you’ve done is to declare me biased while ignoring the fact that you and Olbermann are too.
What’s more, in your rambles about the sins of Fox and merits of Olbermann, you’ve also trailed into discussions of Christianity and conservative Christians, that HAVE nothing to do with the issue at hand– the accusation against Gibson and simply reveal that you have issues/biases that make you less than rational in this discussion.
So, again, by your own logic, Olbermann’s bias and certainly your own bias disqualify you from a valid opinion.
So again– are accusation of bias the BEST you can do, “dear” Ms Erudite?
Fraid so. And as to your comments on my personal life– my man’s one of those rich Republicans. I have amble time and replies to you don’t require heavy lifting…
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 10:39 am
tanne,
Gibson stated that he felt either misquoted or that his feeling had been mispresented.
Only in the mind of someone absolutely determined to believe the worst, would that qualify as a “lie”.
Too, bomb-throwers usually garner attention, tanne. If you are able to feel proud of the fact that Olbermann used that tactic in order to attain it….well….that speaks volumes already…now, doesn’t it…
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 10:47 am
tanne/Mia2,
Isn’t it possible that the number of posts from Fox viewers are to defend Gibson and O’Reilly, as you defend Olbermann? Why do you assume that it’s just because we/they hate Olbermann?
Maybe we should just go on the attack and assume that you just hate O’Reilly and Gibson, and not that you’re defending Olbermann.
Comment by Missy — December 29, 2005 @ 10:56 am
84 posts so far. And they said “nobody cares”…hah!
Comment by Roger C. — December 29, 2005 @ 11:01 am
Hate to ruin all your preconceptions about me there Cecilla but this is one liberal who pulls down mid-six figures a year, and that’s before the decimel point. I own my own house, which is located in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in my city, right between two country clubs, both of which I belong to. I go to church on Sunday, and am a prominent member of my community. I know it’s easier for you to think of me as some ill-educated, non-employed, welfare-check collecting liberal, who either receives or performs abortions in her spare time, but you see, I earned every penny I’ve ever made, and I didn’t have to rely on a rich hubby or daddy to make a dime of it for me. I think that’s known as being independent. My independent streak continues on in my television viewing as I don’t depend upon skewed, biased, and hate-filled bashing such as evidenced on your beloved Fox to give me my marching orders. I make up my own mind about issues. You should really try it sometime, and not depend so much on others to make your way in the world. Oh and sweetie? Just because you don’t agree with what I say doesn’t mean I can’t write and that my arguments don’t hold water. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t be attacking me personally now would you? LOL. You people never cease to provide me with a good laugh.
Comment by Mia2 — December 29, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Earth to Mia,
I’ve never given your personal life a nano-second’s thought. I replied to YOUR statement about MY private life.
I’ve never wondered about your church habits, or your tv viewing habits or your work ethic.
Your arguments?—haven’t seen any. Your sole contribution has been to question my objectivity and to assume I watch FOX News. You’ve yet to answer why your questions of objectivity do not apply to yourself or to Olbermann.
One personal suggestion, spend some of your large fortune on a shrink or a vacation.
You’re working WAY too hard…
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
Cecilia, you say “Gibson stated that he felt either misquoted or that his feeling had been mispresented. Only in the mind of someone absolutely determined to believe the worst, would that qualify as a ‘lie.’”
Uh, no. It qualifies as a “lie” because he was NOT misquoted (the quote Olbermann said he said is on tape) and his feeling was NOT misrepresented. How many different ways are there to interpret the phrase “wrong religion”? There’s only one way: you interpret it to mean that the person who uses it believes there IS such a thing as “the wrong religion” and that it’s other people who believe in it, not himself.
You also say “Too, bomb-throwers usually garner attention, tanne. If you are able to feel proud of the fact that Olbermann used that tactic in order to attain it….well….that speaks volumes already…now, doesn’t it…”
Well, sometimes it’s necessary to throw a verbal bomb in order to explode someone else’s argument, and in my mind, this is one well worth exploding, because it’s the rhetoric of hate.
Missy asks, “Isn’t it possible that the number of posts from Fox viewers are to defend Gibson and O’Reilly, as you defend Olbermann? Why do you assume that it’s just because we/they hate Olbermann?”
Well, don’t they sort of go hand in hand for the Fox Fanclub? Anyone who dares to say anything against Fox or its minions must be derided and defeated? Why do I have a feeling that if Olbermann joined Fox News tomorrow and claimed himself to be a follower of conservative thought, the same people who are deriding him now and calling him “Dopeyman” and such would be labeling him a “genius” and a great addition to the network? Of course, that will never happen, so there’s no chance of proving out my theory, but I’m 100% sure it would happen. Whereas I would just sit there and wonder whatever happened to him. I wouldn’t think he “went stupid” overnight. I’d just be terribly saddened to see him put all his brilliance to work for people who spend so much time spouting hateful and divisive rhetoric.
Nah, I don’t hate O’Reilly or Gibson. I don’t waste my time. They’re sad creatures, both of them. I admit I get a good laugh out of O’Reilly, because he’s such a hypocrite and he deserves every putdown he gets, but from what Olbermann says and some other stuff I’ve read about him on the Internet, Gibson is to be pitied more than laughed at.
Now, about the religion thing and tolerance one more time, if anyone cares to even try to understand:
TRUE tolerance is not saying “I grant you the right to believe in whatever religion you want, even though it is the wrong religion and mine is the right religion, so long as you behave.”
TRUE tolerance is saying: “You have the right (i.e., it is not mine to give you as a follower of “the right” or “the majority” religion; it is something you already HAVE) to believe in whatever religion you like, even though I do not share your belief in your religion. And we both have an obligation not to use our respective differing religions as an excuse to hate, hurt or kill each other.”
True tolerance is not granted by the “majority” to the “minority.” It is something ALL PEOPLE have for ALL OTHER PEOPLE. Or should, anyway.
And if I can’t make it any clearer than that as to what I, personally, believe Olbermann was trying to say (and why Gibson’s phrase “the wrong religion” upset him so), there’s nothing else I can do.
Comment by tanne — December 29, 2005 @ 7:37 pm
tanne,
ABSOLUTELY— there’s nothing else you can do…
Comment by Cecelia — December 29, 2005 @ 7:44 pm
Don’t worry tanne, any bi-partisan person coming here will have come to the same conclusion you and many others like ourselves have. The FNC people here are just making it even more embarassing and showing how partisan they really are in failing to admit anything wrong anyone does at FNC.
I’m a pretty big CNN fan and if I think someone makes a stupid statement I’m not going to support them on it. For example, what Klein did to Aaron Brown.
It seems though for the FNC people here they’ll just argue with the wall, and go down fighting for the people on it no matter what stupid thing they say or lie about.
Comment by AnonymousHere — December 29, 2005 @ 8:14 pm
Well,how seriously can anyone take tanne?
She postulates some sort of weird law of physics… making a dislike of Keith Olbermann proportional to viewership of Fox News.
She equates the same sort of societal stigma that keeps her from farting in public and wearing a bikini in church with duress…or codified law
and then attributes John Gibson’s thoughts as being about … duress….or codified law…
She calls everyone else biased because — in her mind— they must be FOX News groupies— while she goes off on FoX News for hours and never ventures a thought to her own bias…
Just how seriously can one take this sort of juvenile, illogical rant…
Not seriously at all… UNLESS you’re a biased person who hates Fox News and will believe any demeaning charge against someone who works there…no matter how filmsy the evidence… because you’re biased against their employer….
Exactly.
Comment by Cecelia — December 30, 2005 @ 12:46 am
I think it’s embarrassing that Olbermann/Gibson/O’Reilly play this circular and useless blame game. I think it demeans each of them equally, and makes me disinterested in anything any of them have to say.
I don’t allow my kids to participate in this type of constant blaming behavior, and it’s even more distasteful coming from grown men. I think they are all in the wrong, all juvenile, and when I see any of them bring up the names of the other, I switch stations.
I mean, so they all hate each other — okay we get that. None of them comes out looking better than the other.
Comment by Christine — December 31, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
Fox may try and gaslight the situation. However they spin it, what Gibson said was wrong.
Comment by sharonapple — December 31, 2005 @ 9:16 pm