Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

John Gibson Is Stupid -- Exhibit E

Reported by Judy - July 7, 2005

John Gibson displayed his ignorance -- and his failure to do any advance preparation -- again on Wednesday (July 6, 2005) in his handling of an interview with an attorney for the family of Natalee Holloway, the Arubian mwg case.

Gibson was supposed to be interviewing Vinda de Sousa, attorney for Holloway's mother, for a story about whether TV coverage of the case is unfairly implying that authorities in Aruba are not doing enough to find her.

Gibson promo-ed the piece before a commercial break, asking sarcastically, "Well, have they found her?" Well, we could rephrase the question and ask whether George Bush is doing all he can to find Osama bin Laden, and then answer it sarcastically with, "Well, has he found him?" But that's another big story that you'll never see on the Big Story.

After the break, instead of going to the story he promo-ed, Gibson decided to ask de Sousa about threats from the parents of one of two boys who had been jailed in Aruba and then released that they would sue Holloway's mother if she calls him a criminal again.

Gibson wanted to know if they would go through with a lawsuit because the boy would have to go under oath and could be open to questions about his activities that night. Not once, not twice, not three times, not even four times, but FIVE times, de Sousa told Gibson that the boy would not have to go under oath in such a case. In Aruba, the parties in a defamation case do not have to go under oath, she said, only witnesses.

Why does this show Gibson is stupid?

First of all, Gibson might have done a little advance work to find out how the court system in Aruba operates. After all, he and the rest of the Gang of Fox have been hyping this case for weeks now. But if he had done that research, he would have known the question was stupid in the first place and he would have had to dream up something else to kill time with.

Or, if he was too lazy to do the advance work, he could have asked the question in such a way that showed he understood that the court system in Aruba might be different from that in the U.S. He could have said, "Now Ms. de Sousa, in the U.S., if the boy's parents filed such a lawsuit, he could be faced with questioning under oath about his activities that night. Does it work that way in Aruba, too? And if so, might that deter them from filing such a suit?" But no, John is so ethnocentric and xenophobic that he can't imagine any place doing things differently from the U.S. so he blundered ahead.

Or, failing the first two options, he could have listened more closely to her answers so that de Sousa would not have had to repeat herself. But then, he would have had to be smart enough to pick up her meaning the first time. And Gibson could never pull that off.

Having wasted so much time on a matter unrelated to the story he promoted, Gibson finally got around to asking de Sousa about whether Arubans are sensitive to criticism of their country's handling of the case. Now, why would he ask an attorney for the alleged victim's mother that question? Probably because he was too lazy to find somebody else to ask.

Anyway, de Sousa said she thinks the prosecutor is doing everything possible to solve the case.

The entire segment was a waste of time, except for the additional evidence it provides for my on-going premise: John Gibson is too stupid to be on television.


Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.