Outrage! Haters Smear Fox Anchor


The Outfoxed gals participate in a loathsome, unfounded slander, and Google News distributes it to millions. Updated!

Readers of this site know that, of all the Fox haters, the newshounds are the most rabid and reckless. They certainly proved that this holiday season, topping off their mendacities with a Christmas Eve calumny of unparalleled proportions. Their target is John Gibson--but not content to challenge the content of what he says, or to rebut his book, the newshaters have resorted to the last refuge of the desperate: the personal attack.

Newshater deborah has uncritically republished a despicable smear, the point of which is to accuse Mr Gibson of being a drunk and a child molester. The unknown, untraceable author of this indictment, uploaded anonymously to another site, is too cowardly to sign his or her real name. There is zero evidence that it is true: no documentation, no corroboration, no evidence, no nothing. But the newshaters elevate this hateful innuendo to a "report", justifying their character assassination by claiming:
News Hounds is not posting it as truth.

Of course not. Despite the fact that deborah goes on to pretty much declare Mr Gibson guilty:
Gibson needs to realize that his own imperfections that make him part of humanity also should teach him to be understanding of others. Maybe he has invited attack...

Now these are the same newshaters who, on the other 364 days of the week:

This slander of John Gibson is too slimy for even the worst of the usual smear sites. Which makes it a perfect fit for the newshaters. Is this what their moneybags, Jim Gilliam, wants to subsidize with his generous financial backing? Is this what Google News (who have been conned by the newsliars into syndicating their drivel) considers responsible commentary? The haters don't care. Certainly not deborah, who saw this as a perfect opportunity to teach that uppity know-it-all Fox guy "a lesson".

A year ago, the newshaters distinguished themselves by declaring that the birth of Christ is "nonsense". This Christmas Eve, they have progressed from religious bigotry to hateful personal defamation. Peace on earth and goodwill toward men, Fox-haters' style. May they receive justice.

Update: Just about 24 hours after it appeared, the newshaters article was rewritten. Now the most odious portions of the slander have been omitted, though the haters still encourage people to go read the entire thing. Deborah appended a comment, explaining this was a reaction to the "judgemental [sic] flak [sic]" they had been receiving. But minutes later, her explanatory note itself disappeared! So now the newsliars are trying to hide from readers their irresponsibility in this matter. We archived the original version, seen here in a screen grab (with the most defamatory portions blurred):


posted: Sat - December 24, 2005 at 06:07 PM       j$p  send 

Hairy
JD you are drunk on the kool aid aint ya buddy?!? I wish you well in 2006, hoping you see the light and wake up from your kool aid induced brainwashing.
December 26, 2005, 7:53:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Our buddy Hairy is back! We've been starved for substantive comments that address the issues and make relevant fact-based arguments...but now that Hairy's back...oh wait, never mind.
December 26, 2005, 8:40:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
YOU SAY:There is zero evidence that it is true,no documentation, no corroboration, no evidence, no nothing.-SO I GUESS YOU WERE THERE AT THE HOUSE ON THAT CHRISTMAS DAY AND SAW THAT NOTHING HAPPENED-I'M NOT SAYING THAT ITS TRUE BUT IT COULD BE-THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNOW FOR SURE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE AT THE TIME-ARE YOU GONNA CALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE LIARS?? WHEN YOU/I/NEWSHOUNDS WERENT THERE?? BACK IT UP THEN!!! THE CHILD WAS PROBELLY TO AFRAID/EMBARRESED TO COME FORWARD-LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHERS ARE!!! AND IT PROBELLY HAPPENED WHEN NOBODY WAS LOOKING SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTON CAUGHT-UNLESS YOU EXCPET SOMEONE TO DO IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE SO HE WOULD HAVE GOT CAUGHT???
December 29, 2005, 7:10:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'm sorry, but I'm not the one making the charge. There is no need for me to "back up" anything. The burden of proof is on the accuser. So let's see the evidence, the documentation, the police report, the corroborating witnesses. Let's see anybody go on the record with this charge.
 
You may think people are guilty until proven innocent. It may have worked that way in Nazi Germany, but it doesn't work that way in the good ol' US of A.
December 29, 2005, 7:14:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
very rarley do accusers come forward to accuse someone of wrong doing-when it happens and it usually happens when their is no witnesses-thats when crimes most happen anyway when there is no witnesses!! thats why there is no documentation, police report, the corroborating witnesses-as for showing up drunk- usually nothing is really done about it-the police arent called or witnesses ,documation(they didnt which is strange) the only reason i'm on the other side of this is because-NONE of us were there and dont know if it happened or not and point out the reasons that there were no documentation,police reports, the corroborating witnesses-one more thing and then i'll drop it:
IF only IF someone accused an anchor from A DIFFERENT NETWORK of the samething-would you a) bash them or b) argue the samething you are now?? if its A then you have a DOUBLE standard-as for me?? I would choose what i'm doing now
December 30, 2005, 4:05:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It usually happens that there are no witnesses, but not in the charge leveled in this case. There was the supposed 14-year-old victim, and then there is the mysterious "Amy", who claims that she witnessed it with her own eyes.
 
So there are two people in this case: the victim and a witness. This is NOT a case when there are no witnessses. So where is the evidence? Why was no action taken? Don't tell me it was to spare the 14-year-old, because with a witness the 14-year-old didn't even have to testify or take any role at all in the legal proceedings.
 
Let's look at it this way: there is more evidence that Bill Clinton is a rapist than there is that John Gibson is a child molester. Bill Clinton's accuser has gone public, on the record, and given her name. Nobody has done so in Gibson's case. Under the chris Rule of Law, it's now up to Clinton to prove he didn't do it?!? If you would choose what you're doing now in the Clinton situation, perhaps you can point me to some of your past statements condemning Clinton as a rapist. I've never done that to Clinton, and I wouldn't do it to Gibson either.
 
As for anchors at other channels, I'm not aware of any of them having a decades-old charge flung at them by anonymous cowards who have no evidence. But I would defend them as I defend Clinton and Gibson.
 
The bizarre standard of "Can you prove it didn't happen?" just happens to be the same standard claimed in the movie "Plan 9 from Outer Space". That's the level of legal and logical thinking you are embracing here.
December 30, 2005, 4:39:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
tadeusz- so by your logic-if a women is raped and comes forward-than it PROBELLY happened BUT if a women is raped and doesnt come forward- it didnt happen?? EVERYBODY HANDLES IT DIFFERENTLY (will you concede that fact that everybody handles it differently??) is that what your saying?? anyway i didnt say it was my rule of law-all i did is point out a different POV (point of view) but now all i'm going to say about this is : NONE OF US WERE THERE-NONE OF US KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED FOR SURE OR WHAT WAS SAID/DONE AFTERWARD. IF IT DID HAPPEN THEN THE 2 PEOPLE INVOLVED MADE MISTAKES BY NOT COMING FORWARD-WE DONT KNOW THE REASON WHY THEY DIDNT-I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO ASK THEM- OH-DONT FORGET WITH CLINTON-HE WAS WHAT A GOVERNOR OR IN POLITICS AND THE VICITM WAS LIKE"HE SHOULDNT BE DOING THIS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION HE IS IN" IT WASNT LIKE HE WAS A ORDINARY CITIZEN. i didnt see the movie you referred to- so i dont know what happened in the movie
December 30, 2005, 5:20:30 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
that isn't tadeusz, it's me!
 
If a woman is raped and doesn't come forward, then how in the Wide World of Sports can you have any reason to believe, let alone think, that a woman WAS raped? How would you know about it? ESP? A seance?
 
In the "case" at hand we "know about it" because of something anonymous on the internet. It has no greater credibility than any internet hoax that is circulated. I could write that chris had an illicit affair with a sheep ten years ago and I know because I provided the sheep. The reaction to that should not be, well, we weren't there, none of us knows for sure, we just don't know why they did it... The reaction to that is to call it what it is, an unsubstantiated smear.
 
Which brings us back to the newshounds, who in every other case rail against "tabloid trash" (a book about Hillary) and "digging" through people's lives, not to mention all the other sanctimonious quotes I gave. But then, when the target is John Gibson, can't wait to reprint the entire anonymous smear. Utter hypocrisy.
December 30, 2005, 7:48:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
this is a long comment because i decided to do some reserch on it according to http://www.cvclv.org/stats.html
 
Silent Victims...
One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting these crimes are the belief that it is a private or personal matter and that they fear reprisal from the assailant.
 
* In 1999, only 28% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials - fewer than one in every three [1999 NCVS]
* Of sexually abused children in grades five throught twelve, 48% of the boys and 29% of the girls had told no one about the abuse - not even a friend or sibling. [Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, 1998] 
 
NOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ALL THOSE WOMEN THAT DIDNT REPORT THE RAPE-IT DIDNT HAPPEN??
December 30, 2005, 8:50:47 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
you said:If a woman is raped and doesn't come forward, then how in the Wide World of Sports can you have any reason to believe, let alone think, that a woman WAS raped? How would you know about it? ESP? A seance?
 
my comment: i guess when they EVENTUALLY do- we should all call them LIARS
December 30, 2005, 8:54:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
last comment on it-what if it happended to someone you knew-because they didnt come forward at the time and years past and they do-you gonna call them a liar? cause they waited so long (years and years) to come forward-and if not why? now apply that to this
December 30, 2005, 8:58:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
If it happened to someone I knew, that would be the point. It would be someone I KNEW. Not an anonymous nobody writing a piece of hate mail over the internet. I'm sure the friends of Juanita Broderick have the exact feeling you describe, and they are not going to call her a liar for alleging that Bill Clinton raped her many years before. Is that enough for ME to conclude Clinton is a rapist? Or you?
 
In the Gibson case, we don't even have THAT. All we have is something somebody wrote on the internet. Not even a name. If it were someone I KNEW, then I would have grounds to assess their credibility. That's not the case with an anonymous internet smear.
December 30, 2005, 9:05:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
i cant but ann coulter could (she has nothing to do with it but just a point) looking about it more and more and re-reading all the comments we have exchanged (in a civil peaceful way-no name-calling) your right that the 'net is full of hoaxes and smears i will concede to your points-i did want to however address all the POSSIBLE points before i just said-its all lies thats all-the person is a liar-now as for showing up drunk part-he could have-there would be no evidence at all if he did-people dont usually go thru the trouble to report drunks to the police. unless there needs to be something that says he did
December 30, 2005, 9:35:16 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
what would be more responsilbe?? a)leave the the most odious portions on the site or b) take them off- actually the most responsible thing was never to put it up in the first place but the did-now back to the question-which is more responsible NOW!!-i say B
December 30, 2005, 10:06:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
B would be more responsible if they hadn't deleted the comment where they admitted they had decided to remove the odious portions, so that people who came there would realize that the portions were there but had been removed. But by removing the portions, then removing the notice that they were removed, it's might even be more irresponsible than posting them in the first place. They get the smear value of repeating the entire charge, then they do a stealth rewrite so that people who come across the article later have no idea that they ever did post the entire charge. Maximum smear, minimum credibility damage. The downside, of course, is that it is dishonest.
 
As for Ann Coulter's comments, I don't know how SHE got in here, but if you can point out where I have ever defended that, have at it.
December 30, 2005, 10:26:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
ann coulter just came to my mind-she did say on some occasion "i think bill clinton was a very good rapist" anyway-like i said above after thinking about it further i do agree with you
December 31, 2005, 7:24:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Thank you for your comment. Yes, that's exactly what Ann Coulter said. I assumed that was behind why you referenced her. You won't find me defending that sort of stuff no matter who says it. In any event, it's almost 2006: Happy New Year!
December 31, 2005, 7:43:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
ditto to you-i will contiune to read both sites in 06 since i do it already-i may actually be more outspoken in 06
December 31, 2005, 8:46:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
in retrospect i cant beleiev we actually had a debate on this-what was i thinking??
January 19, 2006, 6:38:35 PM EST – Like – Reply