Colbert praises John Gibson’s journalistic courage.
Last week, ThinkProgress noted that Fox News host John Gibson had accused reporters of “news-guy snobbery” for covering the Iraq war instead of Anna Nicole Smith.” “John Gibson is right,” Stephen Colbert said on Thursday, praising Gibson’s “courage” for reporting on Anna Nicole and not Iraq. Watch it:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “Colbert praises John Gibson’s journalistic courage.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Isn’t there more important things to worry about in this world other than what Colbert is doing or saying?
Just because some like him, does not make him a national figure.
He only has a cable show.
Not nationally syndicated. He wouldn’t survive national syndication. He would be off the air after 2 episodes.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmGenius !
March 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmColbert makes an interesting point with his satire. I found most interesting his question to the audience: “if we don’t report on Anna Nicole, what will we not report on next?”, as the words “My guess is Darfur” appear on the screen.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmLast week I read an associated press article about how the organization made a pact to not report any Paris Hilton-related news for one week. The article was strange, because it looked at the internal dialog within the AP regarding the pact.
One of the AP writers is quoted as saying “What will we not report on next–North Korea?”
So, while Colbert’s character makes a point about lack of coverage for the war (or Darfur, for that matter), the AP makes the even more interesting point regarding what may start to happen when the media singles out specific events to NOT be reported on.
Hmmm…
Colbert and Gibson are correct here. The Anna Story should not be news and it certainly shouldn’t take time away from important news like Iraq, Wallstreet, and the 2008 Campaign. I mean, you probably haven’t even heard that Hilary Clinton learned a Southern Draw that she uses in the South. What can one say, but that she is obviously showing who she really is and not what her crowd wants her to be.
Watch it here:
http://www.ifilm.com/ profile/ breitbart/ video/ 2829104
It is damn funny stuff. Again, please God nominate Obama or Gore. I want to have a Dem I can vote for. Don’t screw up again and nominate a loser like Clinton.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pmhe does have a sense of humor…
March 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmPure Genius !
March 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmNETWORK ANNA NICOLE WALTER REED
March 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pmFOX NEWS 121 10
NETWORK ANNA NICOLE WALTER REED
FOX NEWS 121 10
Colbert isn’t the news here. TP’s own chart shows the truth.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmGibson is an overblown pos.
This is WMD, (Weapons of Mass Distraction), folks. What Gibson & Fux News is really saying is, ‘we don’t want to talk about the real news because, just like you, we’re having a hell of a time defending this administration ourselves.
#5 How is Gibson correct? He is saying that the ANS story IS more important
March 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmthat Iraq and IS a news story!
I love Colbert. Ever see him interview a liberal? He holds their feet to the flame, which the MSM won’t do. And I agree with almost all of Colbert’s conservative views.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThank you Roger squared, for your wise post.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pmPlease, Hillaree, go home…
Hey Danny, guess what Fox news does with every story?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmCobert’s point is simple (although it’s apparent that the right wing does not understand irony or sarcasm) in that most of MSM feeds us bland mush, with little historical context, insight or depth.
RogerRoger
Once again you miss true satire and attempt to engage in your own, with less than resounding success.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmColbert is more effective with his comedic poignancy than these psuedo professional wanna-bees are with thier more “serious” coverage. Ironic, n’est ce pas?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#13 Oh I wasn’t trying to be funny. I was agreeing with Colbert that the Anna death isn’t news worthy. I then pointed out what is news worthy. Showing Clinton make a fool out of herself is something that every station should show over and over. This then gives her a better shot at not getting nominated. In turn, that means that the Dems will nominate a winner like Obama or Gore and win the 2008 election in a landslide. Hell, I’ll even vote for Gore or Obama regardless of the Repug canidate. Clinton on the other hand doesn’t stand a solid chance. Many in America simply hate her because all she does is play politics and is a complete fake.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmTrouble is, Gibson PROBABLY BELIEVES Colbert is SINCERE in his comments and THINKS he is being PRAISED by Colbert when in ACTUALITY Gibson is the BUTT of the joke, the ASS that is being KICKED HARD!!!!! repugnant-repub rightwingnut cranks DO NOT UNDERSTAND “SARCASM” TOO WELL, EVEN WHEN IT COMES UP AND BITES THEM IN THEIR ASS!!!!!
March 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmSelf, repeat 100 times: “I will not waste time responding to RogerRoger.”
March 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmSelf, repeat 100 times: “I will not waste time responding to RogerRoger.â€
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Good luck with that, it’s a tough one. :)
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmClinton on the other hand doesn’t stand a solid chance. Many in America simply hate her because all she does is play politics and is a complete fake.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Have to agree with you there Roger.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmHillary changes whichever way she “percieves” the political winds are blowing.
I won’t be voting for her because she is a DLC shill. She is a Republican lite, like her buddy Lieberman
TP, can we have a transcript for the dial-uppers? Please?
**smiling sweetly**
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmAfter 30+ years in Arkansas, Hillary has every right to use her Southern accent. Most of us Southerners have no accent until we’re home, then we fall back into the “heycuteshoestellyomamahi!” accent. It’s no worse than Bush’s fake Texas twang. That was a total non-story, there.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmcorpus christi texas,
Come on. That’s extremely short sighted. You obviously don’t watch his show or know how loyal his following is. Besides having a mascot named after him in Canada and a bridge named after him in Hungary and a national prayer day for him (I know, shocking) his show is climbing past The Daily Show in ratings. His first show got 1.13 million viewers on cable. You don’t give the man enough credit.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pmNot nationally syndicated. He wouldn’t survive national syndication. He would be off the air after 2 episodes.
I’m not sure what nationally syndicated means in this case. But if you mean broadcast then you may be right and sadly that says more about the US viewing public than how smart Colbert’s show is.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#21 I truly don’t care if Clinton likes to use fake accents. She fakes just about everything. My point is that the Dems have 1 very good canidate in Obama that would win easily and would be a good president. The Dems also have Gore who would also win easily and would probably be a better president then Obama or any president in recent memory. With these 2 winners, why on God’s green earth would anyone nominate Hillary Clinton? You folks on this site seem like the last type to back Clinton when you have Obama and possibly Gore. Do you have something against winning? Just nominate one of them and your assured victory. I’ll even vote for either one!!
March 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pmNow that the ditz is now buried in the Bahamas, maybe the dips at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, (except for my man, Olbermann who takes the news with the same kind of “snobbery” as us) will concentrate on important things like the Walter Reed debacle and Dickless Cheney’s close but no cigar visit with the Grim Reaper.
Of course, if Gibson still wants to cover the Anna Nicole crap, he can go to the Bahamas dig out her grave get into her coffin and just get busy. Hey, a little necrophilia never hurts a RepubliKKKan. Unless he/she gets caught.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pmRoger_Roger
Hillary Clinton gets by on the fact that she is a fund-raising machine and the Democrats, bless them, are not the best and brightest bunch of liberals you will ever see.
She voted for the Iraq War, and was its staunchest supporter right up until it turned inconvenient. She made a big thing about being a conservative, even to the extent of joining forces with voices calling for more stringent censorship in computer games (And let me tell you, I know a lot more guys who quote the Godfather as a source of morality, then quote Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.)
The left doesn’t like her, because she has stabbed the left in the back repeatedly, and shown no concern for America’s policies, only what was expedient for her at the time. She isn’t Mrs Clinton when one talks politics, she is Mrs Lieberman.
And the right doesn’t like her because she is female, and a Democrat.
So basically she has to win over the centre, and the centre only really knows that the Republicans really don’t like her. The Left probably will compromise and vote for her over a Republican, but a lot of lefties will just not vote, washing their hands of the whole thing, and a lot of others will vote Green. The Right, won’t compromise even if she develops stigmata.
She is the only Democrat who can lose this next election, and chances are the Democrats, because they listen to strategists who have repeatedly lost them elections, will put her in.
They should go for Edwards or Obama.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pm#26 I agree with you 100% other then Edward’s. That guy is garunteed to lose. He is a rich elitist that lost the even Cheney in a debate. Does he honestly have much respect on the Left after that major gaff of “2 Americas”. The guy talks about 2 Americas and how that is wrong. Then he goes and does this:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/ exclusives/ display_exclusive.html?id=3848
How can you have respect for him after that. What a hypocrit. Just get Gore to run. He is my #1 choice followed by Obama. Either one wins in a landslide.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pmColbert is not to be taken seriously. Dude, his show is pure satire! I saw the sketch and laughed my ass off.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm[…] fuss about the ‘war’ (whatever that is) and not enough about Anna Nicole Smith. Because reporting on a blonde with a drug problem and double D’s is far, far more courageous than reporting on a corrupt, inept administration and the war they […]
March 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pmBruce Gorton: “She voted for the Iraq War, and was its staunchest supporter right up until it turned inconvenient.”
Bruce, I realize that bashing Hillary is great sport for conservatives and liberals alike, but let’s at least get our facts straight. As early as 2003, Hillary was telling audiences that if she had known then what she knew now, there would have never even been a vote and, if there were, she and most of her Democratic lawmakers would have voted no. And, for the umpteenth time, what she and other lawmakers voted for was to give the president the authority to go to war AS A LAST RESORT and with a fresh UN RESOLUTION in hand. Moreover, the agreement included the stipulation that Bush had to come back every 60 days with updates on the search for WMD’s. I guess what amazes me the most is that people have somehow been hypnotized into a state where they’re demanding apologies and explanations from Democrats about the war in Iraq. The only people who should be explaining and apologizing about Iraq are repubs.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pmBruce: “The left doesn’t like her, because she has stabbed the left in the back repeatedly…”
“She is the only Democrat who can lose this next election”
“a lot of lefties will just not vote, washing their hands of the whole thing, and a lot of others will vote Green…”
Where to start? Let me begin by admitting that Hillary isn’t my favorite candidate in the bunch. Clinton was the one who wanted universal healthcare for all Americans. The fact that it didn’t happen is not her fault - it’s republicans, the media and the insurance industry who are responsible for that.
In almost every head-to-head poll with repubs, Hillary comes out about even or ahead. Others are consistently behind. So, I’m not sure where you get the non-electable stuff.
Green Party????!!!! So I take it you think liberals will make the same mistake as in 2000 and view Hillary as indistinguishable from the Repub nominee. Get serious.
What I find amazing about most of this Hillary-hating is that usually the person who hates Hillary, likes Obama, but Obama’s positions are no more liberal on any issue and, in fact, he’s more conservative than Hillary on some issues.
Here’s what I think this is about: a bunch of right-wing creeps and corporate shills have been dishing out crap about Hillary for years now and many people have bought into it whether or not they know it. If you have an unreasonable, visceral hatred of Hillary, these creeps have won.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:33 pmThere isn’t one potential candidate among the Democrats who isn’t miles above any potential Repub candidate and any Green party a-hole who says otherwise is a damn liar. And, I don’t want to hear any more of that “lesser of two evils bullshit.” Voting isn’t about self-actualization. It isn’t about making yourself feel good and consistent. It’s about choosing our representatives among those who are offered up for the job. If just one out of ten of you green party morons were able to see through the fog in 2000, we wouldn’t be in Iraq, we wouldn’t be bankrupted and we wouldn’t be hated throughout the world today.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:56 pmfolks… i’ve never spent much time reading the roger comments, but this latest incarnation of the roger is just too much of a 180…
i do believe this roger is trolling for blog-bites…
hard to imagine why an anonymous opinion would hold any weight, but these cons are not fair players, nor logical…
March 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pmWar in Iraq? War in Afghanistan? Who cares! It’s amazing, all America needs is Double D distractions. (But it’s not Darfur and Dubai)
March 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pm#30 While I completely disagree that Universal Health Care is a good thing, Clinton still could work towards getting it. The Dems control both houses afterall. There is simply no reason they cannot vote on a bill creating Universal Health Care. I am sure Bush would wisely veto it as we simply cannot afford it (We should pay for the social programs we have first). Either way, you write like the idea was tried, didn’t work, and is done for. Why can’t a leading 08 presidental canidate who has her party in Control of both houses not get this bill out there to be voted on?
You guys talk about the mystical Universal Free Health Care for all thing everyday. Why aren’t your leaders in congress not putting a bill out there to be voted on?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:28 amRoger, that was just stupid. Veto?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:50 amBack on topic:
Don’t call me a traitor or a neocon,I like Stewart,but I find Colberts show basically unwatchable.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:19 amToo hyperactive.