Bill Moyers is a PBS journalist and former LBJ hack (funny how many members of the Washington media worked for Democratic administrations; Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, and George Stephanopolous are examples). He has been called by Power Line “the most contemptible man in American public life.” He has dropped all pretense of objectivity, and made clear his blinding disdain for Republicans and, especially, Christians. Recently he lauched a screed against Karl Rove, which can be viewed via the link above. In it, he goes back to the old “Bush is an idiot hick cowboy” rhetoric, and attacks Christians again. He also claims that Karl Rove told people he’s agnostic, hoping, apparently, that this would enrage Christians, and that we would feel used by Rove.
On Fox News Sunday recently, Karl Rove dismissed the idea that he was agnostic. This prompted Moyers to write in to FNS, which led to the following, at the end of Wallace’s show today:
CHRIS WALLACE: Time for some mail, one letter from liberal commentator Bill Moyers. You may remember in my interview with Karl Rove last Sunday, I asked him about a Moyers statement that Rove is an agnostic who manipulated the Christian right for political gain. Rove responded, “Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander”. Bill Moyers sent me this letter which he posted on his website. He quoted four print stories for his contention that Rove is agnostic. None of which offer any proof other than what Rove supposedly told colleagues over the years. Moyers wrote this:
BILL MOYERS: Obviously, Rove wanted to blow smoke because his version of reality is undermined by his own previous statements and by the reporting and analysis of journalists who have done their home work and don’t take his every word as gospel — no pun intended.
CHRIS WALLACE: Well, to save on postage, Bill, here’s my response. If you want to find out about someone’s religious beliefs, a good first step might be to ask him. If you had talked to Rove as I did, you would have found out he reads a devotional every day and the biggest charitable contribution he ever made was to his church. Of course, you never called Rove. That’s reporting 101, but it would have gotten in the way of a tasty story line about a non-believer flimflamming the Christian right. I guess, Bill, reporting is easier when you don’t worry about the facts.
That will leave a mark. Video here.
Moyers is Exhibit No. 1 for why taxpayers shouldn’t fund PBS.
Craig
Yeah, then we can look forward to a word of ONLY Fox News.
I find it ironic you point to Moyers “lack of objectivism” by quoting Fox News.
Moyers at least has the integrity to admit to his lack of objectivism (checkout http://www.dictionary.com, “editorial” if you will), while institutions such as Fox News pretend to be a news organization while towing the conservative line.
As for not funding PBS, as a person who likes to learn, and cares about the education of our children, I find it tragic there are still troglodites around who cannot see the benefit of a non corporate source of information and education.
I enjoy this blog, but this post was a waste of time.
*Shrug
I don’t see why either side really cares about his beliefs, but when it comes down to it, I think asking Rove himself about his beliefs would be far more beneficial.
As for PBS, I think that de-funding it is a be reactionary. I have not had problems with any programming that I have seen on it besides Barney and Teletubbies.
Here’s a quote from Power Line:
“There comes a time, it seems to me, when a man has been so utterly discredited as a hateful ignoramus that, not only should he be shunned by all people of good will, he should even be cut off from taxpayer subsidies. Is there anything–anything at all–that is too low for PBS to countenance?”
If PBS is “a non corporate source of information and education,” why do I always see these nifty little commercials — whoops!, they’re not commercials if they’re on PBS, right? — um, information stating that such and such a program was funded in part by a “grant” from this corporation or that corporation? Voila! Advertising that can be deducted from taxes. It’s so cool that PBS is untainted by taxed corporate Dollars.
I agree with the first post. This was a waste of time.
I can’t help thinking about those millions of tickle me elmo dolls, or the whole sesame street franchise.
If I were to start selling Kermit slippers or Miss Piggy water wings, how long do you suppose it would be before copywrite attorneys and an army of federal agents kicked in the door of my business and confiscated my wares?
The fact is PBS is a corp being subsidized by tax money. Just the tax exemption alone gives it an unfair market advantage, let alone the government handouts on top.
And have you noticed any reasonably prices dancing Big Birds on the market? Hell no. They soak the section of the public who are in most need of a break, young mothers and fathers.
Screw PBS.
Sorry, but your assumption that PBS actually owns Sesame Street is incorrect. They just have the right to broadcast it on television.
In fact, most television shows are not owned by the network that broadcasts them.
Your hatred of Sesame Street dolls is troublesome. Perhaps something you might with to seek professional help with.
Outside of that, both arguments here are off the mark quite a bit. To lambast the “corporate” nature of PBS, in the face of every other network available to us today, is ridiculous.
You would have me believe that because Mattel buys a license from Sesame Street, Inc to sell toys to children, PBS is a waste?
Do you realize how much of our children’s educational material is provided by the same grants and organizations that materialize inside of the PBS umbrella?
And it is funded by tax payer dollars, and yes, corporate contributions. But it’s a hell of a lot nicer to imagine my children being exposed to NOVA, or the 3-2-1-Contact program of old than todays Fox News, CNN, or Home Shopping Network.
Regardless, the original point of commenting on this post is that Craig makes a fool of himself touting the “discredation” of Bill Moyers by quoting Fox News. Moyers admits to his impartiality. He is editorializing, much like Craig is on this blog. Moyers at least checks his facts.
Best of luck,
Jason
Jason, if this post is a “waste of time,” what is it to comment on this post twice? Also, it is clear from the exchange I quoted that Moyers doesn’t check any facts. His assertions of agnosticism are third-hand, and his comments on Bush and Christians are nothing but visceral hate.
Heh, with this post I have 4 comments on this article. Kind of funny really.
I comment now, a third time, for the same reason I commented twice before. I enjoy this blog. I enjoy Tom. What you have written here is utter waste.
You quote one of the most credibility challenged TV “journalists” of our day, and use that as “proof” that Moyers doesn’t check facts, by, ironically, calling out Moyers on an issue you yourself haven’t checked facts on.
Rove’s agnosticism isn’t exactly something pondered and rumored about by Moyers alone. And I have read the Rove statements myself. He really said it. Whether he changed his mind, I cannot know, but he did claim to be an agnostic.
Moyers has never made a “visceral” or “hate”ful comment regarding Bush or a Christian (in fact if you had done your own research, you would see that Moyers is a devout Christian, coming from a long line of devout Christians) that I have ever seen, and I have been watching and/or reading him my entire life.
So, Craig, the reason I comment twice on this post that I do firmly believe is a waste of time is that I want you to stop wasting people’s time. This post shows that anyone can have a blog, and any idiot can put two pieces of information together into a “story.” That is exactly what you have done here in order to “call Moyers out.” But you yourself did not research it, nor are you reporting the facts of the situtation (neither Moyers statements, the letter to Fox News, nor the way Wallace took Moyers statements out of context in the very incident you are quoting).
I have a deep respect for the profession of journalism, having trained in it, followed it, participated in it, and even, at times, been ashamed of it. But I have respect none-the-less, and what you have written here is, to me, akin to the cancer of half-crocked, poorly researched, reactionay clap-trap that have led this country, and the profession of journalism into the trouble it finds itself in.
I comment twice before, and now a third time to say, more briefly (at least at the end, heh) that you should be ashamed of yourself, and because of this post alone, I will never take seriously any words I find on this blog followed by your name.
Because you, Sir, have let me down