<p>Bravo Bill!</p>
<p>[Light</a> Up The Darkness Bill Moyers on Jeremiah Wright](<a href=“http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?p=111]Light”>http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?p=111)</p>
<p>Very thoughtful and thought-provoking essay. Thanks for sharing that!</p>
<p>Great essay! Every paragraph packs a punch but this one was news to me:</p>
<p>"Hardly anyone took the “chickens come home to roost” remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes,
people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright’s absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. public health service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. "</p>
<p>He read this at the beginning of “Now” this week. It was riveting.</p>
<p>I had to miss the original interview. I wish I’d seen it.</p>
<p>Moyer’s essay shows he is neither a journalist nor particularly bright. He showed himself to be a Rev. Wright enabler. It watched Moyer’s “love fest” with Wright. It would not surprise me if Moyers actually believes all that anti-american, racists garbage coming from Wright.</p>
<p>Razorsharp,</p>
<p>I’m a Bill Moyer’s fan so obviously I don’t agree - I think he goes far deeper on issues than many journalists, searching for meaning, ethics and clarity in the most complex issues of our day. I think Moyers did an excellent job of explaining Reverend Wright in context. It’s unfortunate that we have to look so deep to find that kind of discourse in our media outlets. </p>
<p>I am curious how this essay shows that Moyers is not a journalist?</p>
<p>To me, there is a difference between a journalist and a commentator. A journalist’s job is to report what he or she sees without interjecting his or her personal opinion. A commentator’s job is to interject his or her personal opinion as necessary. I don’t think every journalist is always a journalist and never a commentator and I don’t think every commentator is never a journalist. There can be overlap – but it’s a matter of degree. </p>
<p>Bill Moyer’s is more commentator than journalist. He has a personal liberal agenda and seeks stories to further that agenda. If he would simply openly admit his liberal agenda and admit that he is a liberal commentator, I would not have any problem with him. My problem with him is that he continues to suggest that he is an objective journalist who is seeking facts and the truth when in fact he is simply seeking the truth that fits his opinion.</p>
<p>
Both O’Reilly and Hannity refer to themselves as commentators. They also are sometimes journalist. I have no problem with O’Reilly and Hannity because they are honest about their angle on the news. I have the same opinion about Colmes who is the liberal side of Hannity and Colmes. If Moyers would simply admit he is the extreme opposite of Hannity, I would not have a problem with Moyers. Moyers does not do that and that is why he cannot be trusted.</p>
<p>Don’t you find the quote I cited particularly interesting in the context of Rev. Wright’s speech? Doesn’t it make you think about what informs Wright’s thinking. </p>
<p>I’m having a great deal of trouble seeing Moyers as equal to but polar opposite of Hannity and O’Reilly. Hannity and O’Reilly operate from the same principal as a gossip, honing in on a negative moment and repeating it over and over with the intent of wreaking havoc or causing destruction. Moyers may be biased but comes to his view through research and understanding - more like William Kristol or David Brooks in my opinion.</p>
<p>
Nobody misunderstands him – Wright is a quack. When he tried to explain himself in front of the National Press club and the NAACP, he confirmed his lunacy.</p>
<p>Here is an example of how weak Moyers is. </p>
<p>Wright says the US government created AIDS to kill black people. Moyers questions him about that and Wright says the US government let black men be untreated from syphilis so the government could complete a test. Moyers leaves it at that. If Moyers had not been a Wright sympathizer, Moyers would have pointed out the obvious differences such as that (1) there is absolutely no proof that the US government created AIDS, (2) the US government is spending a fortune trying to cure AIDS even though merely using condoms would pretty much eliminate the disease and cost the government nothing, and (3) the government did not create syphilis and thus it would not be a precedent for the government creating AIDS. </p>
<p>This a simple analysis any logical journalist or even commentator could do. Instead, Moyers just loves all the governent hating because that is his agenda. Moyers’ research is focused on his agenda – he just won’t admit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My favorite piece that Moyers did was On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying. There are very few journalists (if any) that could have pulled off that piece as he did. That was not about commentating, or about pushing a liberal agenda.</p>
<p>“Hannity and O’Reilly operate from the same principal as a gossip, honing in on a negative moment and repeating it over and over with the intent of wreaking havoc or causing destruction”</p>
<p>Can you give examples? Hannity gets on every one of my nerves, but I just find O’Reilly to be a suck-up-blowhard. I would be curious as to your personal perception.</p>
<p>“My favorite piece that Moyers did was On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying. There are very few journalists (if any) that could have pulled off that piece as he did. That was not about commentating,”</p>
<p>I agree that it was very, very well done but in my view that piece was the epitome of commentary. Which is a good thing and something worthy of respect. I think it’s a huge stretch to call Moyers a journalist, though.</p>
<p>I agree with the general sentiment that America’s foreign policy was the terrorists’ motivation for carrying out 9/11.</p>
<p>However, I like the message better when explained more intellectually from the like of people like Chalmers Johnson and Ron Paul who explain the 9/11 was “blowback” for us putting troops in saudia arabia and supporting israel. They explain that those actions are the MOTIVE, but not the justification, and that you wouldnt accuse a murder detective searching for a motive of trying to excuse a murderer. The “chickens coming home to roost” comment though sounds as if he’s saying that we actually DESERVE the attacks, which is ridiculous.</p>
<p>And the aids thing is absurd.</p>
<p>"However, I like the message better when explained more intellectually from the like of people like Chalmers Johnson and Ron Paul who explain the 9/11 was “blowback” for us putting troops in saudia arabia and supporting israel. "</p>
<p>To those who share that view, I ask (not rhetorically): if you view American support of Israel as the motive for terrorism, what would you (yourself) do about Israel? If you can say that American support of Israel will cost innocent lives, what do you view as the proper course of action (specifically) with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian question?</p>
<p>I’d follow George Washington’s advice: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”</p>
<p>Zoosermom,
I’ve seen Hannity and O’Reilly in action and don’t feel the need to provide examples. As for my perception of them - I think I made that clear.
They belong in a different news genre than Moyers so I find the comparison ludicrous. I used to be quite verbal about Fox news in a time when it was not popular to criticize it - I don’t feel the need to prove my point anymore.</p>
<p>“I’ve seen Hannity and O’Reilly in action and don’t feel the need to provide examples. As for my perception of them - I think I made that clear.”</p>
<p>Actually you didn’t. I don’t argue to argue, but I see O’Reailly as a wimpy, blowhard in the vein of the Man Behind the Curtain. I can’t, for the life of me, imagine what “destruction” they cause.</p>
<p>zoosermom,
I have a fair amount of family and friends that are Republican and watch Fox news. Rush Limbaugh is bookmarked on my mom’s computer. Negative messages presented by people like O’Reilly and Hannity about a party or particular candidate are powerful in influencing how people think, especially low information voters who are looking for reinforcement of their political views. In addition people like O’Reilly and Hannity are far more visible and accessible than the likes of Bill Moyers - I’ll bet they influence far more low information voters than Bill Moyers could ever hope to ( just based on viewer numbers) - low information voters wouldn’t even have the patience to listen to Moyers - I know I’ve seen anecdotal evidence of it.</p>
<p>“Negative messages presented by people like O’Reilly and Hannity about a party or particular candidate are powerful in influencing how people think, especially low information voters who are looking for reinforcement of their political views. In addition people like O’Reilly and Hannity are far more visible and accessible than the likes of Bill Moyers - I’ll bet they influence far more low information voters than Bill Moyers could ever hope to ( just based on viewer numbers) - low information voters wouldn’t even have the patience to listen to Moyers - I know I’ve seen anecdotal evidence of it.”</p>
<p>I was asking for anecdotal evidence in the context of a conversation here. Just curious, that’s all. I think O’Reilly and Hannity definitely reach more people but I still can’t imagine “havoc” and would still be interested in your views. The candidate most helped by O’Reilly in the recent past has been Hillary. He did very good by her. Since you answered respectfully, I’m going to do the same, but I would like to point out that your post appears to me to imply that because O’Reilly and Hannity might influence voters to the right, you view them as dangerous. Because that’s not the side/party you would choose. In other words, if I don’t agree, it must be bad. I think Matthews, Olbermann influence people to vote for democratic candidates, but I wouldn’t use the word “destruction.” Just “disagree.” I wouldn’t necessarily equate Moyers with Hannity/O’reilly, although he is not a journalist. But I would compare them with Olbermann/Matthews any day. So the same does exist on the left. It just happens that some folks on the left don’t want free speech on the right.</p>