PBS and the horrible Liberal Media.

[Superlative]

Conservatives can hate all they want, and Democrats are going to absolutely love this, but it looks like this little ditty called “Buying the War,” by PBS is going to paint the media as kind of Conservative mouthpieces for the war.


NEW YORK The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear next Wednesday, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called “Buying the War,” which marks the return of “Bill Moyers Journal.” E&P was sent a preview DVD and a draft transcript for the program this week.

While much of the evidence of the media’s role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again -- yet Moyers points out, “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses.”

Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, “The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should’ve all been doing that.”

At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.

But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, “I don’t think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war…We didn’t dig enough. And we shouldn’t have been fooled in this way.”...


http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2007/04/20/devastating-moyers-probe-of-press-and-iraq-coming/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042007H.shtml

http://www.freepress.net/news/22592

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x276172

 

[Annie]

Conservatives can hate all they want, and Democrats are going to absolutely love this, but it looks like this little ditty called “Buying the War,” by PBS is going to paint the media as kind of Conservative mouthpieces for the war.


NEW YORK The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear next Wednesday, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called “Buying the War,” which marks the return of “Bill Moyers Journal.” E&P was sent a preview DVD and a draft transcript for the program this week.

While much of the evidence of the media’s role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again -- yet Moyers points out, “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses.”

Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, “The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should’ve all been doing that.”

At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.

But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, “I don’t think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war…We didn’t dig enough. And we shouldn’t have been fooled in this way.”...


http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2007/04/20/devastating-moyers-probe-of-press-and-iraq-coming/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042007H.shtml

http://www.freepress.net/news/22592

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x276172

I used to admire Bill Moyers, but he's in the pocket of George Soros, which all those that refused to appear know.

What Rather says, pfffttt, he's already been authoratatively discredited, which he hopes to ignore.

 

[Superlative]

I used to admire Bill Moyers, but he's in the pocket of George Soros, which all those that refused to appear know.

What Rather says, pfffttt, he's already been authoratatively discredited, which he hopes to ignore.

Maybe its Rathers little jab back at everyone, kind of "You didnt check facts either."

 

[Annie]

Maybe its Rathers little jab back at everyone, kind of "You didnt check facts either."

Problem is, the media can be jabbed about facts, but they didn't 'make them up.' They may have misinterpreted, but didn't fabricate, hoping that since they believe the fabrication true, it would will out.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

If buying the war will be shown, why wont the movie about jihadists be shown?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The media.

Facts vs. ratings

hmm. I wonder which they care more about

 

[onedomino]

Why does PBS or NPR even exist? Why is taxpayer money being spent on programs like the one mentioned above (or a rightwing analogue), Antiques Roadshow, BBC World News (?!!), This Old House, or whatever? If these shows have merit, then let them exist is the real world of competition and the market, like everything else.

 

[musicman]

Why does PBS or NPR even exist? Why is taxpayer money being spent on programs like the one mentioned above (or a rightwing analogue), Antiques Roadshow, BBC World News (?!!), This Old House, or whatever? If these shows have merit, then let them exist is the real world of competition and the market, like everything else.

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Not 1 dollar of tax should be spent on them.

 

[Superlative]

They've got some good shows. I like PBS. But im crazy like that.

 

[onedomino]

They've got some good shows. I like PBS. But im crazy like that.

If they are good shows, then sell them to commercial or pay television. Let NOVA, for example, sell itself to the Science Channel.

 

[Superlative]

If they are good shows, then sell them to commercial or pay television. Let NOVA, for example, sell itself to the Science Channel.

Maybe they dont want to be sell outs, theyre trying to stay true to their fans, and not becoming corporate shills.

Maybe all the networks dont want to touch them cause theyre too far right, or too far left for any one network.

Maybe its all a conspiracy by the government to keep PBS down, and keep those kinds of opinions from reaching a large audience.

who knows and who cares.

Ill watch it, and you wont.

Meh.

 

[musicman]

Maybe they dont want to be sell outs, theyre trying to stay true to their fans, and not becoming corporate shills.

That's an interesting POV, Superlative. It reminds me of something you and I were discussing in another thread. You seem to believe that that which is market-driven is untrustworthy - having, somehow, "sold out". But, what's the alternative - coercion? Doesn't some imperfect human entity - somewhere along the line - have to declare, "THIS is truth", and "THIS is newsworthy"? Who would that be, in a "perfect" set of circumstances - and who would guard HIM? I prefer someone driven by the real-life consequences of the market; I believe in the innate good sense of a significant percentage of the American population.

Maybe all the networks dont want to touch them cause theyre too far right, or too far left for any one network.

I wish the world possessed the innate fairness and equanimity you imagine here. Unfortunately, the real-life facts don't bear it out. When PBS comes down diagonally on a matter - which is OFTEN - it is always, always, ALWAYS to the left.

Maybe its all a conspiracy by the government to keep PBS down, and keep those kinds of opinions from reaching a large audience.

So, failing to confiscate taxpayer dollars for redistribution at PBS would constitute an active conspiracy to keep PBS down???!!! Sounds like the entitlement mentality run wild to me.

who knows and who cares.

Ill watch it, and you wont.

Meh.

Wonderful! You're willing to let it rise or fall on its own merits, then?

 

[Superlative]

That's an interesting POV, Superlative. It reminds me of something you and I were discussing in another thread. You seem to believe that that which is market-driven is untrustworthy - having, somehow, "sold out". But, what's the alternative - coercion? Doesn't some imperfect human entity - somewhere along the line - have to declare, "THIS is truth", and "THIS is newsworthy"? Who would that be, in a "perfect" set of circumstances - and who would guard HIM? I prefer someone driven by the real-life consequences of the market; I believe in the innate good sense of a significant percentage of the American population.



I wish the world possessed the innate fairness and equanimity you imagine here. Unfortunately, the real-life facts don't bear it out. When PBS comes down diagonally on a matter - which is OFTEN - it is always, always, ALWAYS to the left.



So, failing to confiscate taxpayer dollars for redistribution at PBS would constitute an active conspiracy to keep PBS down???!!! Sounds like the entitlement mentality run wild to me.



Wonderful! You're willing to let it rise or fall on its own merits, then?

I wasnt necessarily serious about any of those claims, I was just throwing them out there more as rhetorical sarcasm than anything.
But your points are noted, and appreciated.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Public bias, does not belong on a station, that is financed, even 1% by the government. The government should not pay for a liberal or conservative bias, and pbs is clearly been liberally biased. They wont play the jihadist documentary but they will play buying the war.

 

[Superlative]

Public bias, does not belong on a station, that is financed, even 1% by the government. The government should not pay for a liberal or conservative bias, and pbs is clearly been liberally biased. They wont play the jihadist documentary but they will play buying the war.

They do play alot of left wing shows.

It just so happens that Liberal shows like Frontline find facts and the facts more often then not contradict the Right wing stance, which automatically makes it 'left wing conspiracy theory.'

Even if the facts prove in any way the right may be wrong, it immediately gets labeled liberal propaganda.


i.e.

The subpeona of condoleeza rice to testify about "Yellow Cake" and 'alluminum tubes'

Democrats in the US congress have approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, to testify on the current administration's pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein, then president of Iraq, was seeking weapons of mass destruction.

The House oversight and government reform committee voted 21-10 on Wednesday that she should testify.
Sean McCormack, state department spokesman, said department officials would try to answer the committee, but indicated Rice may not comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege.

"Those matters mean the questions that [have] related to her tenure as national security adviser," he said.
That position gives "us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena," said Henry Waxman, the House oversight committee's democratic chairman.

Calling a Conservative to testify regarding past actions based on questionable intel is somewhat reasonable,

but its a Democrat doing it.

So its all a part of the liberal agenda to attack and smear the Right and Bush.

Hey in all honesty every was so pumped by fear mongering that everyone believed that there was going to be a mushroom cloud if we didnt act.

The Conservatives told us so.

So we went ahead and invaded.

And it was Condoleeza Rice's obligation and job to say, The intel is a bit thin, we should actually be a little more confident in the facts before we go ahead.

And she didnt.

But its all a Liberal, left wing aganda to point blame and get people in trouble and go to court about it, holding people accountable.

According to the right.


Anyone who questions or disagrees in the least with the right is immediately and automatically a Left Wing Liberal.

kind of interesting, when you think about it.

the right tells the truth, and if you disagree with their version, its considered a conspiracy theory which makes you a liberal left wing tinfoil hat crazy nut job.

Its no ones fault, because the right has always been lying and the left have always been crazy.

A perfect balance.