Video: Gutfeld apologizes for anti-Islamic rhetoric on “Red Eye”

posted at 2:31 pm on March 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

From last night’s show. No idea what the story is here. Maybe GG felt genuinely remorseful about what Jonathan Hoenig said the night before, or maybe some Fox exec pulled him aside afterward and “suggested” that he find the remorse within. It’s probably better that we don’t know.

I’ve spliced together clips from both shows, starting with the apology and then segueing into Hoenig’s comments on Thursday. If you listen closely, you can hear our own Bryan Preston agree with him when he scolds Lisa Bernhard for her double standard. The full video of that segment is here.


Update: Fox has done a superb job with radical Islam by airing special cuts of “Obsession” and documentaries about Hezbollah in the U.S., but when it comes to Mohammed they’re as squeamish as the rest. They refused to show the Danish cartoons on air last year — until a guest on Hannity & Colmes took matters into her own hands. February 7, 2006…


More (Bryan): Of course I agreed with Jonathan that YouTube operates under a double standard. That was the whole point of my intro to the segment–that YouTube operates under a double standard; to wit, you can criticize anything but Islamic terrorism on YouTube and your video will stay on the site. But criticize jihadis and your video will eventually go down the YouTube memory hole.

Jonathan’s other comments are his own.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sure it’s ok for the left and MSM to bash Christians but say the “Prophet Mohammad” sucks and conservatives have to apologize. Well, I think Mohammad is a scroat-bag and I feel no remorse.

x95b10 on March 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Ridiculous. Why don’t we just turn our country over to the Islamo-Fascists right now.

Decoy256 on March 3, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Related? Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig.

Stephen M on March 3, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I don’t hate the Prophet Mohammad, but I do think that he sucks.

GG should make further amends by drawing the Prophet Mohammad with some dolphins and giraffes and maybe some rainbows, and then he could auction the picture and donate the proceeds to an Islamic charity.

rw on March 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Alright, this is rank censorship.
And I’m sure if a host on FNC had said, “I think Jesus Christ sucks” everyone here would be just fine with that.

billy on March 3, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I think Fox News is more concerned about their reporters that are vulnerable to Islamic reprisals than any other supposed nefarious agendas.

Sammy316 on March 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Sammy316 on March 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM

So are you saying they should censor themselves so not to offend the killers?

EnochCain on March 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Use it or loose it when it comes to free speech! Like I said on the original post Bryan showed the difference between people who are in the politics business who really have meaning(Bryan) and others(Gutfeld) who are PC and talking heads trying to move up. Bryan has the heart of a Lion Gutfeld a.k.a Gutless and his cohorts are cowards

Drtuddle on March 3, 2007 at 3:26 PM

I’m not making any statements of ideology here. I am just taking a stab at the reasoning behind the apology.

Sammy316 on March 3, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Maybe he was sorry for leftie Lisa Bernhard’s belittling of Lucy. I think Fox needs a new entertainment reporter, Bernhard needs to go.

Wade on March 3, 2007 at 3:33 PM

So are you saying they should censor themselves so not to offend the killers?

EnochCain on March 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

No, I think he’s saying that FNC doesn’t want to take unnecessary risks with their overseas reporters. Insulting Mohamed to get a laugh is an unnecessary risk, especially when the joke wasn’t even funny. Showing the cartoons is not an unnecessary risk, in that it was legitimate news, but it is still a risk that FNC Michelle was willing to take.

There’s a fine line between legitimate criticism and foolish provocation.

spmat on March 3, 2007 at 3:42 PM

She’s not hard to look at and not a scientologist, unlike some other women on Fox, so I say she stays. Now then, if I used the cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb on his turban as toilet paper, who would that offend?

Savage on March 3, 2007 at 3:43 PM

The thought police stike again!! Freedom of speech? What is that? For certain topics, IT DOESN’T EXIST!!!

Oh wait! It’s the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that is taking our freedom away! Sorry I almost forgot.

Troy Rasmussen on March 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Alright, this is rank censorship.
And I’m sure if a host on FNC had said, “I think Jesus Christ sucks” everyone here would be just fine with that.

We wouldn’t be “just fine with that” but Christians don’t have a habit of murdering, or trying to murder, everyone who riddicules their religion.

Troy Rasmussen on March 3, 2007 at 3:48 PM

The prophet Muhhamed sucks… Hhhmmm not exactly a lie or anything like that, so whats the problem.

Viper1 on March 3, 2007 at 3:52 PM

This was the same point that Tarranto made in the BOTW column yesterday.

A mormon girl was asked if she had 10 mommies. She responded by saying “that’s gay!”

She got in trouble for saying a common phrase “that’s gay” (meaning stupid), but the other person who made a direct insult on her religion didn’t get in trouble at all.

Selective sensitivity to select groups of people. Muslims and gays are selected to be “Special” and thus cannot be offended.

lorien1973 on March 3, 2007 at 4:00 PM

I had no idea MM did that last year. Holy crap, she really does have bigger and brassier…um, I don’t know, something…than all of us guys here put together.

I can’t think of the word. Can anyone help?

Enrique on March 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM

We wouldn’t be “just fine with that” but Christians don’t have a habit of murdering, or trying to murder, everyone who riddicules their religion.

Troy Rasmussen on March 3, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Good point. Christians have never, ever, ever persecuted people for their religious beliefs and they have always, always been just fine with ridicule.
Religious persecution?
Never heard of it till those dang muslims showed up.

billy on March 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM

spmat on March 3, 2007 at 3:42 PM

What happens when saying these things becomes an unnecessary risk in our own country?

EnochCain on March 3, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Christians have never, ever, ever persecuted people for their religious beliefs and they have always, always been just fine with ridicule.
Religious persecution?
Never heard of it till those dang muslims showed up.

The difference being one happened many hudreds of years ago and the other is still happening today.

DWB on March 3, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Christians have never, ever, ever persecuted people for their religious beliefs and they have always, always been just fine with ridicule.

Not recently. C’mon, be pragmatic. When Catholics start flying planes into Indonesian skyscrapers, then I’ll rethink my stance on whether Muslims are being unfairly stereotyped.

Enrique on March 3, 2007 at 4:30 PM

I think that it’s about time that Greg apologized for that horrible, soul-scarring, gratuitous, needless, crass, classless, EVIL INSULT!!

After all, aren’t we supposed to be BETTER than they are?

Otherwise, we’ll all be donning kaffiyehs, Semtex belts and scimitars and BECOME THAT WHICH WE HATE!!!1!1!

/sarcasm off.

Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Apologize? Hell no.The false prophet is a child molesting, goat screwing warmonger who’s intolerant of women, gays and minorities and he forces his religeon on non-believers … in other words, he’s everything the left claims to hate about Christians. I will apologize for this post as soon as bin Laden apologizes for having his brainwashed minions fly our airplanes into our buildings and the left apologizes for apologizing for al Qeada. I know my crime is much worse, insulting the false prophet and all, but fair is fair. You go first.

Tony737 on March 3, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I think mohammed was a psycho mass murderer. I dare you to try and get an apology from me.

SouthernGent on March 3, 2007 at 4:51 PM

The Prophet Mohhamad, as I have been exposed to him….

DOES SUCK!!!

I suggest that if Muslims are bothered by that, then get some face time on TV and PROVE to me differently, by unequivocally DENOUNCING Islamo-facist terrorism!

csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 5:08 PM

I guess it’s ok here to insult Muslims just not homosexuals. The Hypocrisy is staggering.

TheBigOldDog on March 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM

“I’d say something about John Edwards Mohhamad, but if you say ‘faggot’ you have to go to rehab.”

MCPO Airdale on March 3, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Good point. Christians have never, ever, ever persecuted people for their religious beliefs and they have always, always been just fine with ridicule.
Religious persecution?
Never heard of it till those dang muslims showed up.

billy on March 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM

I didn’t say that Christians have never persecuted people. But today, in civilized countries, Muslims want to behead people for writing cartoons. Come on billy, open your eyes. In the last twenty years, how many times have Christians rioted by the thousands when ever someone derided Christ.

Troy Rasmussen on March 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM

What about the pedophile “prophet” and murderous warlord Mohammad doesn’t suck?

Is it okay to sanction the assassination of a nursing mother because she wrote mocking poetry about you? (SEE: Asma Bint Marwan… who was slaughtered with her baby at her hreast.)

Is it okay to demand that your followers “not take as friends” the followers of the Judeo-Christian religion you completely stole and then pretended was your own inspiration and new faith (“Islam“)?

Is it okay to recommend the subjugation of all “Peoples of the Book” and the annihilation of all others?

It is okay to “marry” and rape a 9 year old child?

What about this fascistic clown doesn’t suck?

This apology should be retracted as an insult to the thinking members of the audience.

Those who have botherrf to read the Koran and Hadiths and understand the existential threat to a free humanity from this intolerant, misogynistic, patriachally-poisoned, homophobic, anti-art, anti-music, anti-human rights cult of global theocratic imperialism.

profitsbeard on March 3, 2007 at 7:02 PM

MCPO Airdale on March 3, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Good. You need to use that line on the “lets slam ann coulter because we are too knee-jerk liberal to listen first” thread.

csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 7:25 PM

This is stupid. Johnathan used a joke to make a good point and it wouldn’t have been a controversy if it were any other religious figure than Mohammad.

frankj on March 3, 2007 at 7:38 PM

There’s nothing wrong with saying Mohammed sucked. He did. In fact, saying he sucked lets Mohammed off easy.

For example, Mohammed executed six hundred captive Jewish men from the Quraysh tribe. They took them off in small groups and beheaded them. It took all day. Mohammed was an active and enthusiastic beheader.

Now, you might say that sucks. You could say that it sets an evil example for the world, especially when Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect Muslim and have set his behavior as the template for how Muslims should live. Consequently, Islam produces terrorists like Zarqawi beheading captives in snuff videos, which is simple imitation of Mohammed’s violence and the height of Muslim morality.

So when you say Mohammed sucked, you haven’t said nearly enough. It’s just the first step toward the moral position which compels humankind to reject Mohammed as a moral example and to label him as evil.

Tantor on March 3, 2007 at 7:52 PM

I guess it’s ok here to insult Muslims just not homosexuals. The Hypocrisy is staggering.

No, you can insult homosexuals here, too … you fag.

lmn876 on March 3, 2007 at 8:32 PM

This is stupid. Johnathan used a joke to make a good point and it wouldn’t have been a controversy if it were any other religious figure than Mohammad.

frankj on March 3, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Another excellent point. This thread is just knocking ‘em outta the park.
If Jonathon had said, ” I hate Jesus Christ, Christ sucks” there would have been no outrage at all.

billy on March 3, 2007 at 8:48 PM

i can assure you that if someone said “i hate jesus christ, jesus christ sucks” we would’ve apologized.

and don’t pretend that the double-standard doesn’t work both ways – if someone on the show said that about jesus and we DIDN’T apologize, the same people who are pissed we apologized for hoenig’s muhammad remark would be outraged.

Levy on March 3, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Dream on Levy, dream on. FNC only appologized because they are afraid of terrorists.

billy on March 3, 2007 at 9:21 PM

and don’t pretend that the double-standard doesn’t work both ways – if someone on the show said that about jesus and we DIDN’T apologize, the same people who are pissed we apologized for hoenig’s muhammad remark would be outraged.

Not if it was a joke. That’s the problem here; you can’t even joke about saying bad things about Muhammad without worry about violent repercussions. I’m not saying people should go out denouncing Muhammad, but it’s a double standard and we should recognize it.

frankj on March 3, 2007 at 9:24 PM

What happens when saying these things becomes an unnecessary risk in our own country?

EnochCain on March 3, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I fail to see how endangering reporters in the field for the sake of a throw-away joke will protect the country from Islamic rage. Yes, frank discussion of the realities of Islamic imperialism is necessary to understanding the forces arrayed against us, but that was not what was being apologized for in the first place.

The point being made, that I was defending, is a pragmatic one. Pick your battles. Do I think they should have apologized? No, not really. It was jerky boys, yes, but it wasn’t profoundly wrong to say it. Do I think they were justified from the standpoint of intellectual integrity in apologizing? You bet, given that it was a blanket apology meant to soothe hurt feelings, not a statement of repentance or a retraction of the original context of double standards.

And Levy is correct. Had that statement been made about about Jesus, the same apology would have been made, on the same pragmatic basis, though for different reasons (i.e. money: Christians make up the sizable majority of their viewer demographic).

spmat on March 3, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Then joke on your about how much Jesus Christ sucks. Let’s see how well your wife would react to that that bit of humor in order to prove a point…

Levy’s 100% right. Imagine those skanks from the Edwards campaign were on The Mighty ‘Eye throwing out “godbag” insults and then claiming it was all a big joke that stoopid RethugliKKKans didn’t have the brains to grasp the nuance?

Props to Gutfeld.

ScottMcC on March 3, 2007 at 9:58 PM

That is, of course, if you work from the premise that Christianity and Islam, Mohammed and Jesus, are morally equivalent.

But hey, I hear that moral equivalency is all the rage these days.

Faggots.

Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM

No, you work from the premise that mankind is a true brotherhood rather than a fake druken fraternity hazing a new generation just because “they did it to me so I’m doing it to them.”

ScottMcC on March 3, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Jonathan Hoenig says the “Prophet Mohammad” sucks.

Why is that soo terrible when it’s true ? ?

This country or at least FNC has lost it’s BALLS . . .

Texyank on March 3, 2007 at 10:58 PM

No, you work from the premise that mankind is a true brotherhood rather than a fake druken fraternity hazing a new generation just because “they did it to me so I’m doing it to them.”

Would you parse that one for me so that it at the very least makes a modicum of actual sense?

Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Would you parse that one for me so that it at the very least makes a modicum of actual sense?

sure. just because some people are assholes doesn’t mean you have to be one, too.

(that’s “you” in the general sense, not “you, misha.”)

Levy on March 4, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Dream on Levy, dream on. FNC only appologized because they are afraid of terrorists.

please. you really think fox news channel, of all places, wouldn’t apologize if someone on our air said “your messiah jesus christ sucks?” next you’ll accuse us of liberal bias.

and to another commenter’s point: hoenig didn’t say it as a joke – he meant it. i’m a big fan of his, and i’m not attacking him, i’m just stating a fact.

anyway, we did what we had to do, and it’s done. in my opinion we did the right thing. if anyone thinks that makes me a pussy, my army veteran’s ass can live with that.

Levy on March 4, 2007 at 12:53 AM

This is what the conservative movement has devolved into.
Pathetic.

billy on March 4, 2007 at 12:55 AM

please. you really think fox news channel, of all places, wouldn’t apologize if someone on our air said “your messiah jesus christ sucks?” next you’ll accuse us of liberal bias
Levy on March 4, 2007 at 12:53 AM

You know I’m being a total smartass on this thread, right?

billy on March 4, 2007 at 1:10 AM

You know I’m being a total smartass on this thread, right?

billy on March 4, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Levy’s face, meet egg. :) Sorry I couldn’t resist.

But yeah Hoenig said it in all seriousness and personally I agree with him; The prophet Mohamed IS what’s wrong with Islam.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 4, 2007 at 1:21 AM

sure. just because some people are assholes doesn’t mean you have to be one, too.

But Levy, that wasn’t the point of the comment I made to which he answered with a complete non sequitur.

I noted that for somebody to hold that saying “Mohammed sucks” is just as bad as saying “Jesus sucks”, you have to first establish moral equivalency between the two.

Otherwise, saying “Rust-Tierney is a pedophile sack of sh*t” is no better than saying “Bush is a pedophile sack of sh*t”, and I dare say that there’s a difference there somewhere.

Misha I on March 4, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Misha I on March 4, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Your post is a non sequitur.
Why bring up pedophilia on this thread? Because Misha l must be pedophile.
Moral equivalence my ass, you Misha must have unnatural desires for children.

billy on March 4, 2007 at 1:31 AM

billy, I was talking to the grownups here.

Don’t make me move your high chair back into the nursery.

Misha I on March 4, 2007 at 1:47 AM

misha l
This is how you speak to grown-ups?
You’re a poo-poo head

But hey, I hear that moral equivalency is all the rage these days.

Faggots

.

Otherwise, we’ll all be donning kaffiyehs, Semtex belts and scimitars and BECOME THAT WHICH WE HATE!!!1!1!

/sarcasm off.

billy on March 4, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Well I used to enjoy redeye..but I hate apologists.

Highrise on March 4, 2007 at 2:14 AM

I think that it’s about time that Greg apologized for that horrible, soul-scarring, gratuitous, needless, crass, classless, EVIL INSULT!!

After all, aren’t we supposed to be BETTER than they are?

Otherwise, we’ll all be donning kaffiyehs, Semtex belts and scimitars and BECOME THAT WHICH WE HATE!!!1!1!

/sarcasm off.

Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

billy on March 4, 2007 at 2:24 AM

I think that it’s about time that Greg apologized for that horrible, soul-scarring, gratuitous, needless, crass, classless, EVIL INSULT!!

After all, aren’t we supposed to be BETTER than they are?

Otherwise, we’ll all be donning kaffiyehs, Semtex belts and scimitars and BECOME THAT WHICH WE HATE!!!1!1!

/sarcasm off.

Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM:

billy on March 4, 2007 at 2:25 AM

I didn’t think an apology was necessary, but it’s their show and they know the situation better. Let’s not blow this out proportion.

frankj on March 4, 2007 at 8:47 AM

I noted that for somebody to hold that saying “Mohammed sucks” is just as bad as saying “Jesus sucks”, you have to first establish moral equivalency between the two.

This isn’t a matter of insulting the respective prophets, as much as respecting the followers of each. There are many varied interpretations of Mohammeds words, not all people agree his was the war-mongering pedophile others see, so establishing a moral equivalence is going to be rather tricky it seems to me. Which Mohammed are we using for comparison?

If we only focus on the negative, people can paint quite a different view of Jesus than I am guessing most of you hold.

We don’t allow violent extremists to define our Savior, why should we aid and abet the violent extremists who are trying to define Mohammed against the wishes of the peaceful Muslems living next door to us?

B Moe on March 4, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Levy in ’08

Start printing up those t-shirts and bumper stickers NOW.

ScottMcC on March 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Jonathan’s other comments are his own.

I think he was making a point that you can’t say Islam sucks on tv without serious back lash. The fact that the host is appologizing for it makes the point beautifully.

The media can call Christ an insane narcisist all they want … but oh boy don’t say nothing about Islam.

Proof positive that violence does work … in the favor of Jihad.

One Angry Christian on March 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM

What was that!?!?

Obscene!

Hoenig spoke truth and the host of Red Eye apologizes?

Are the Jihadis threatening to blow up Fox News, to kidnap all those on the Red Eye program, torture them, coerce them to become Muslims, or behead them live on television?

That’s my guess.

Islam has won. Fear has gripped the world. Even China is said to hide the Pig image for this new Chinese New Year, the Year of the Pig, so that they do not “offend” Islam and Muslims.

The Chinese don’t care when it comes to persecuting Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners, do they? No. They don’t.

At least Christians, Falun Gong, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Ba’hais, Jain’s, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, and on and on, don’t go out and blow up your house, your car, or kidnap you and your family, torture you to death, coerce you to convert, or slit you from ear to ear like Muslims do.

What a world, full of double standards and gutlessness, allowing bad people to set the rules, and submitting to them.

Aren’t there any righteous, strong, brave men left?

William

William2006 on March 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM

B MOE-

Which Mohammad are we using…?

I use the one that studious Muslims use …the one in the Koran and Hadiths. The official Mohammad, the “prophet” of Islam.

Thankfully, as few Muslims have read either source, seriously, as Christians have read the Bible, beyond a few X-Mas quotes, so these Mohammedans remain “peaceful” out of blissful ignorance of the violent nature of their nominal leader.

Or isn’t raping a 9 year old girl pedophilia?

Isn’t sending out your henchman to assassinate people who simply mock you murderous and criminal?

Isn’t ordering your followers to not take Christians or Jews a friends sociopathic?

What part of MOEhammad is worth preserving?

His contempt for the worth of women as “half of a man”?

His contempt for representational art?

His contempt for dogs (one of our natural and faithful allies on Earth)?

His belief that meteorites were missiles used to hit devils with?

His notion that a demon urinates in the ear of a person who falls asleep during prayer services?

Rev. Jim Jones -of cyanide Kool-Aid infamy- has about as much to recommend him to our posterity.

Read the Koran- spread the dread.

Read the Hadiths- for a world-historical laugh.

profitsbeard on March 4, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Everything you mention is a source of contention in different translations of the Koran, just as there are controversies in various translations of the Bible. I think it is interesting that you prefer to believe you are wiser to the ways of Islam than the “ignorant” peaceful ones who have studied the Koran their whole lives, what was it the Bible said about hubris?

B Moe on March 4, 2007 at 8:46 PM

That Hoenig guy is one of the truly laugh-out-loud funny/clever guys I’ve seen on tv. Judging from this clip and other times I’ve seen him, I think he was just making a point about how off-limits it is to criticize Islam—not just on You-Tube, but even on our own “conservative” Fox. And all the brouhaha surrounding this little episode just proved his point.

jdpaz on March 5, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Everything you mention is a source of contention in different translations of the Koran, just as there are controversies in various translations of the Bible. I think it is interesting that you prefer to believe you are wiser to the ways of Islam than the “ignorant” peaceful ones who have studied the Koran their whole lives, what was it the Bible said about hubris?

B Moe on March 4, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Your statement is inaccurate and misleading.

1) Many of the followers of Islam have little to no knowledge of what is in the Q’ran. Many cannot read the Q’ran in the language it is originally written in, while many just follow the religion without spending much time reading the Q’ran in depth, and without thinking about the clear evidence of violence called for in the Q’ran.

2) There is not much conflict between translations in the Q’ran, where they can be found. I have read excerpts from different sections of the Q’ran from different translations into English and they pretty much correspond with one another, and they maintain the same main meaning.

3) There is little to no conflict in translations of the Bible as well. There are some phrase differences between different translations-versions but these are basically no different from saying “Today I am going to the store,” and “I am going to the store today,” and “I am going to the market today,” and “Today I am going to shop at the market.”

Many people attempt to discount the true content of the Q’ran from those who read it and see that the hatred and violence clearly called for in the Q’ran does truly exist.

Many people attempt to discount the statement and claims in the Bible, and even attempt to skew the content in the Bible by saying that translations differ when, in fact, there is virtually no difference between translations, save the phrasing.

Nevertheless, it is foolish for targets of Islamic Jihad, targets such as the non-Islamic world, to downplay the very real danger that their religious scripture perpetrates in its very content.

William

William2006 on March 5, 2007 at 12:29 PM