Bill Moyers Journal

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 26 2007, 02:57 AM) [snapback]430355[/snapback]</div>

Sorry Mojo, I didn't mean to step on your topic, I should review the board more closely before posting but I do believe it is noteworthy. Does this change your opinion of BM?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 26 2007, 05:57 AM) [snapback]430355[/snapback]</div>

It was a good show, on par with any Frontline episode (easily the best television has to offer currently) and went a long way to explaining the complicity and manipulation of the so-called 'liberal' media during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The media in Washington and New York sure didn't (and still doesn't) seem too liberal to me these days. Even the likes of Oprah and Phil Donahue were involved. Goebbels would have been proud.

I particularly liked the ending where it was pointed out that the Bush speechwriter responsible for the often repeated, infamous line, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" is now working at The Washington Post. Just as Bush1 is remembered primarily for "Read my lips...", I strongly suspect that Bush2's legacy will be defined by that one sentence.

 

I will definitely agree that the country was manipulated by the Bush administration into going to war. However, i won't watch some talking head tell me about it, regardless of his political views. IMO, talking heads on the left are just as bad as those on the right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 26 2007, 08:37 AM) [snapback]430423[/snapback]</div>

I tend to make a distinction between investigative reporting and pundits. Bill Moyers is the former while O'Reilly is the latter. Of course you should be skeptical about everything. Cheers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 26 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]430441[/snapback]</div>

I would disagree about Moyers. His work is too one sided to be considered reporting. He is a commentator more than a reporter. Nothing wrong with that and I like watching his shows, but I don't think for a minute that he is trying to be objective.

 

"Objective" in the US being defined as giving equal time to someone who says the sky is blue to someone saying it's pink. :lol:

Or, if it's the Republicans saying it's pink, then perhaps just having someone buried on page 17 saying it might actually be blue is sufficient.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]430446[/snapback]</div>

Why not. Don't confuse presenting the truth with being one-sided.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 26 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]430470[/snapback]</div>

I think he is confused about the role of a reporter...

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38c70b2c1ec8.htm


And from Wikipedia on Moyers, a section abotu charges of bias...

In 2003 the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, of which Moyers is president, gave money to a variety of establishments which have been described as "left leaning," such as the Christian evangelical magazine Sojourners ($500,000), Salon.com ($277,785) and The Nation magazine ($115,000)[13]. He has also been involved with the group Take Back America, an organization that seeks to help elect liberal political candidates.

In October 2006, Dr E. Calvin Beisner, whom Moyers interviewed for Is God Green, wrote that Moyers had told him that he "intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats". [14][this source's reliability may need verification] Moyers denies the claim [15][this source's reliability may need verification], but Beisner stands by it [16][this source's reliability may need verification].

On April 24, 2007, Bill O'Reilly, on his FOX News show The O'Reilly Factor, charged Moyers as being "far-left" for producing a TV program about the US Media's involvement in the run up to the Iraq war. O'Reilly then opined that Moyers is not suitable for an objective PBS documentary he was set to shoot.


[edit] Charges related to the 1964 presidential campaign
In October 1964 Walter Jenkins resigned from Johnson's staff after being arrested in a men's room in Washington, and Moyers became the President's informal chief of staff. According to Laurence H. Silberman—who examined J. Edgar Hoover's secret files upon their discovery in 1974— Moyers, in his capacity as chief of staff, directed Hoover to have the FBI investigate Barry Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity, to be used in case Goldwater brought up Jenkins's arrest as a campaign issue. According to Silberman, Moyers at first claimed that the memo was a forgery, but then admitted to him that it was genuine. [17] Moyers denies these allegations, stating, "Silberman's account of our conversation is at odds with mine." [18]


A lot of smoke for no fire...

 

Moyers is neither a commentator or reporter, he's a journalist. I have no idea what O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al, purport to be (I suppose 'commentator' is about the closest). Regardless, they all lack the skill and/or intelligence that Moyers possesses. I cannot imagine a show that would present a lucid counterpoint to Buying the War from any of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 26 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]430612[/snapback]</div>

How are you qualified to comment on the skill/intelligence of those people? Would it be because you don't like what they say you think they can't be intelligent?

And regardless of what he thinks he is, he apparently has no qualms about blurring the lines between politician/"journalist"/activist.

My original post on him said I like watching his work, but I am under no illusion that he is un-biased.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]430515[/snapback]</div>

That would be the Laurence Silberman discussed here by former right-wing columnist David Brock.

The Silberman credited with inspiring the lawyers who rewrote our laws so we can torture people.

The Silberman who is a longtime Republican operative who is said to have orchestrated President Reagan's "October Surprise," overturned Oliver North's Iran-Contra conviction and helped pursue sexual misconduct allegations against President Clinton.

Pardon me if I take Bill Moyer's word over that of a partisan hack like Silberman.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Apr 26 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]430656[/snapback]</div>

\

Why would you do that? Is Moyer's not also a "partisan hack", having worked for LBJ? His work appears scholarly, sounds intelligent, but always has a liberal slant. Does it not make you at lease a little suspicious of his ethics when he is acting as a "journalist" covering the very subjects he spends money promoting? And benefits personally from said activities? If not, I think I might know of some beach front property in Arizona you might be interested in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]430668[/snapback]</div>

was not moyer involved in having the fbi investigate people on goldwaters staff during an election cycle? i guess those that think moyers is neutral also believe dan rather is neutral too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]430622[/snapback]</div>

One need only compare a Moyers' program or editorial with that of one of those whose idea of civilized discourse and ability to 'win' an argument is to berate and belligerently shout-down anyone who disagrees with them, using precisely the kinds of unsubstantiated, published 'facts' that Moyers detailed on his program.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]430668[/snapback]</div>

No I'd call him more:

Bill Moyer, distinguished broadcaster, educator and author, will be the 34th annual Sol Feinstone Lecture Series speaker Wednesday, Nov. 15, at 7:45 p.m. in Robinson Auditorium, Thayer Hall. The topic of his lecture will focus on the "Meaning of Freedom."

Moyers' career encompasses a broad spectrum of journalism spanning three decades. He has earned such prestigious awards as the Gold Baton, the highest honor of the Alfred I. duPont Columbia University Award; the PEN USA Courageous Advocacy Award for his passionate, outspoken commitment to freedom of speech and dedication to journalistic integrity; the Career Achievement Award from the International Documentary Association; and Frankel Prize (now the National Humanities Medal) from the National Endowment for the Humanities for outstanding contributions to American cultural life.

Before establishing Public Affairs Television in 1986, Moyers served as executive editor of Bill Moyers' Journal, senior news analyst for CBS Evening News and chief correspondent for the acclaimed documentary series, CBS Reports. Additionally, he produced the acclaimed weekly newsmagazine NOW with Bill Moyers and earlier in his career had authored several best sellers.

In 1970, Dr. Sol Feinstone endowed the U.S. Military Academy's Sol Feinstone Lecture Series to enable young men and women to become more aware of their heritage of freedom. The lecture is free of charge and open to the public.

Rather, that's what I would call him if I was the United States Military Academy at West Point Press Office. You know, West Point, that bastion of liberalism.
http://www.usma.edu/PublicAffairs/PressRel...stone110706.htm

 

No comment on his ethical issue's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]430730[/snapback]</div>

If you mean the Silberman smear, I see that as naught but a smear, pure and simple, with no verification other than Silberman's word, which I distrust.

I mean, all your other ethical issue sources say "source my need verification." Hence, unverified wiki-allegations don't sound particularly substantive to me weighed against someone who has won countless awards in broadcast journalism for the past 30 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 26 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]430730[/snapback]</div>

Reading both Moyers' and O'Reilly's entries on Wikipedia quickly clears up the question as to whom is the most 'ethical' of these two.

My favorite is the Peabody awards. Whereas Moyers was actually awarded a lifetime Peabody award (along with over thirty Emmy awards and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Natonal Television Academy), O'Reilly (who has never actually won a Peabody award) went ahead and claimed to have won it for Inside Edition anyway, then later denied that he ever said it on May 13, 2001.

The problem is that he had previously made that exact claim on three separate occasions on his show: August 20, 1999; May 8, 2000; and May 19, 2000.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Apr 26 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]430737[/snapback]</div>

I don't mean what anyone has said about him. What I am talking about is his personally benefitting (by being paid) from leading an activist organization and reporting on the very same topic that organization promotes. Do you see no potential for conflict of interest questions or bias? I didn't know he was such a sacred cow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 26 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]430742[/snapback]</div>

I don't recall ever trying to compare O'Reilly and Moyers. Certainly O'Reilly is biased. But can you not see any way Moyers might also be biased?