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

John Gibson rags on New York Times, ignores FOX TV's "24"

Reported by Chrish - August 9, 2007 -

John Gibson and Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed on The Big Story today 8/9/07 whether the New York Times was right to publish an article by "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt. Levitt offered an idea of what might be a terrorizing terror attack, and asked readers to submit their ideas. Judge Andrew Napolitano defended the article under free speech rights, and the New York Times legal right to publish it, but questioned the morality of doing same. Gibson was just against it, and used the My Word segment to elaborate.

Gibson dismissed Levitt's idea ("to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country") as "stupid" and said

"Levitt is obviously one of those brilliant dopes who should stay locked up in a room somewhere without an Internet connection. But my concern here is The New York Times.

What possible reason could an institution like The Times have for helping terrorists come up with ways to kill us? A public service? To point out our vulnerabilities?

I suppose The Times might take that stance, but just for the sake of appearances, couldn't The Times sometimes act as though it is not on the side of people who want to kill us?

The Times doesn't want terrorists spied on, locked up or killed. It doesn't want terrorists blamed, because a good suit of blame fits George W. Bush so much better."

Gibson "wondered" (similar to "the Cavuto") if this blogger was just being irresponsible, or was he really doing harm to the country's security?

As Napolitano pointed out in the earlier segment, while all the suggestions are horrible, they are not things the government has not already thought of. He recalled Harry Houdini's book, "The Right Way to Do Wrong," which told people how to break into banks and out of jail. The cops thanked him, for teaching them things they didn't know. Napolitano suggested that Levitt wrote this for entertainment value and may actually be helping Homeland Security.

Gibson, indignant, wanted to know if he was shot by someone acting on these ideas, could he sue Levitt? Well, sure he could, but it would be thrown out, said JAN. We can borrow books with bomb-making instructions from a government-run library, but we could not sue the library or the government! JAN went admittedly out of his purview to say that the NYTimes has a legal right to print the blog, but in his opinion they have a moral obligation to "reject this trash."

The banner during the entire segment read "TIMES HELPS TERRORISTS."

Oh for crying out loud. Read the original post here, and a follow-up here.
This guy, like others before him, (I'm thinking Ward Churchill, Rocky Anderson, Sunsara Taylor, and Rosie O'Donnell but there are many more) has questioned the official story line and the FOXes have been sicced on him. It boggles the mind to see a supposed journalism outfit so gung-ho on censorship - like they demanded of NBC/GE, Gibson seems to believe it is the publishing corporation's duty to censor.

Each season of FOX Television's drama "24" is packed with hints and tips for terrorists, new things to consider, if they're so inclined. We won't hear any calls for yanking that show on FNC, though.