<p>
</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree. As someone who works in the hospice industry, I (and other hospice workers) saw it as factual, not something subjective. He reported on the issues people in our country face when dying and how our culture has historically responded to this experience. To me, a journalist’s report is a story when it’s about educating and passing along objective information. I would include Moyers’ piece included in that.</p>
<p>“I respectfully disagree”</p>
<p>It’s great that we can disagree without rolling in the mud.</p>
<p>It hasn’t rained around here today ;)</p>
<p>"It hasn’t rained around here today "</p>
<p>IT’s rained here for days. Come on over!</p>
<p>Zoosermom,
I understand your point but don’t have the time, the quick ability to write succintly, nor the time to find annecdotal evidence of a particular situation. To be honest I try not to watch any of the opinion shows during this election season. My husband watches Oberman every night and sometimes I watch as well but his show is not the same as O’Reilly’s. My opinions about O’Reilly and a general awareness of the style of Fox news comes from the last election. I can’t articulate the difference with anecdotes(well I could if I didn’t have a job) and I can’t remove my own bias enough to look at all programming objectively. I think there is a difference however, the largest being that many of the right wing pundits are available to a wider audience and probably a less informed one. There was a study that revealed how Fox viewers were less informed than viewers of other networks. Viewers of PBS had the best grasp of factual information. I doubt that Keith Oberman appeals to an emotionally driven low information voter in the same way that O’Reilly does. Oberman requires the viewer to be up to speed in order to understand what he is talking about - he is not someone you can watch casually or without a pretty good working knowledge of the political landscape. </p>
<p>As for your comment about some not wanting free speech on the right, I would say that I don’t agree with the current news philosophy of presenting both sides of an argument, democratic and republican, regardless of fact - it’s my observation that this very line of thinking coupled with a characterization of the press as predominately liberal is what hindered the press and made them susceptible to manipulation by the current administration.</p>
<p>" can’t articulate the difference with anecdotes(well I could if I didn’t have a job) and I can’t remove my own bias enough to look at all programming objectively"
I can’t tell you how much I respect that degree of honesty.</p>
<p>"I doubt that Keith Oberman appeals to an emotionally driven low information voter in the same way that O’Reilly does. "</p>
<p>Gotta disagree with you on that. Olbermann is the Neanderthal of commentary. (Ever see “the worst person in the world?”)</p>
<p>“it’s my observation that this very line of thinking coupled with a characterization of the press as predominately liberal is what hindered the press and made them susceptible to manipulation by the current administration.”</p>
<p>The press is predominantly liberal, which is fine. I agree that Fox leans right, but O’Reilly is a suck-up, not a tough guy, and since MSNBC is even farther left, I think it brings some fairness. There actually are republican/conservative people who deserve to have their views heard. As far as manipulation by the current administration? I just don’t know about that. It is my deeply-held belief that history is going to tell a very different story of this time period than what the conventional “wisdom” holds. The “wisdom” set forth by the New York Times, CNN, CBS, et al.</p>
<p>Is fairness what we are after and to whom is it fair, the two different political parties? I would prefer a pursuit of truth.</p>
<p>“Is fairness what we are after and to whom is it fair, the two different political parties? I would prefer a pursuit of truth.”
First of all, different people can view the same situation differently and both be truthful. Secondly, we were talking about Hannity/O’Reilly who claim to be nothing but commentators. There should be as much a place for them as for Olbermann/Matthews, who are also commentators. It’s also very hard to tell sometimes whether the NY Times is pretending to report something or is just furthering its agenda.</p>
<p>Youdontsay, You can view the Moyers piece on youtube; just search on “bill moyers wright.” I thought it was wonderful. </p>
<p>zooser, have you seen any of Olbermann’s special comments? I don’t see how you can call him a Neanderthal if you have. </p>
<p>lizschup, I agree with everything you’ve posted.</p>
<p>My favorite pundit is Rachel Maddow.</p>
<p>"zooser, have you seen any of Olbermann’s special comments? I don’t see how you can call him a Neanderthal if you have. "
I watch him fairly regularly and stand by my opinion. I think he and Chris Matthews (of the tingle in the leg) are two of a kind. And I’m glad they exist and fully support their right to be on the public airways.</p>
<p>"I doubt that Keith Oberman appeals to an emotionally driven low information voter in the same way that O’Reilly does. "</p>
<p>I respectfully, but strongly disagree with this characterization. I watch The O’Reilly Factor nearly every day along with my husband. We are political “junkies” and are VERY well-informed and definitely NOT “emotionally driven”. We are highly-educated, conservative as to economic/national security/military issues and liberal on social concerns.</p>
<p>I can’t speak as to Olberman in that I don’t watch him, but I think there is room for all viewpoints.</p>
<p>As to the original topic, I am also one of those who thought Moyers handled Wright with some very soft kid gloves. Not impressed with the interview at all. I didn’t feel it was journalistic in the approach nor in the delivery.</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. "</p>
<p>Apparently even the PBS ombudsman believes that the Moyer’s interview was a puff piece:
[PBS</a> | Ombudsman](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/]PBS”>PBS | Ombudsman)</p>
<p>Okay FF, I’ll give you that one and throw this back at you from the very same guy. In my mailbox today was the weekly alert from FAIR outlining how our illustrious network news media, the one you all seem to think has a liberal bias, dropped the ball on reporting the Pentagon Pundit’s scandal. Fox news is of course still featuring one of the Pentagon Pundits with no disclosure whatsoever. Here is what the PBS ombudsman had to say: </p>
<p>"Nevertheless, the value of the Times article, which I viewed as an excellent public service, lays out in detail the depth of these continuing ties to the Pentagon, to the vast array of contractors and contracts that surround it, and to the public relations value both in terms of policy and attraction of business that can be influenced by TV performances.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with retired officers with important experience coming on TV as analysts. They can, and often do, make valuable contributions to understanding. And obviously anyone going on television to discuss important matters will check with his or her contacts in the military beforehand to get an up-to-date assessment on how others see the issue. That would be normal for any specialized field.</p>
<p>Yet the Times article documents what is also the heavy-hand of propaganda and media manipulation tactics that have been reported on before with this administration that can make such appearances deceptive and dangerous for the public. That is especially so because of the trust that so many people put in experienced military officers even if they no longer wear the uniform. That is why it is so crucial that networks apply rigorous standards in vetting these guests indeed, all guests and in letting the viewer in on what they find out. That is why it is so disappointing that the networks didn’t even cover this story and why it is likely that it will happen again, and again.</p>
<p>Coloradomom,
Low information voters aren’t necessarily uneducated nor lacking in intelligence, mostly lacking in time with a low interest in politics or being an informed citizen - you know, the kind of people that are still deciding when they enter the voting booth.</p>
<p>The nugget of truth, or should I say opinion, I totally agree with: </p>
<p>“Yet the Times article documents what is also the heavy-hand of propaganda and media manipulation — tactics that have been reported on before with this administration — that can make such appearances deceptive and dangerous for the public.”</p>
<p>Not reported on early enough or often enough in my book. I’ll be happy when there are no longer two versions of the truth concerning this administration.</p>
<p>“Coloradomom,
Low information voters aren’t necessarily uneducated nor lacking in intelligence, mostly lacking in time with a low interest in politics or being an informed citizen - you know, the kind of people that are still deciding when they enter the voting booth.”</p>
<p>Can you provide some documentation for the connections you’re making here or are they your opinions?</p>
<p>“the one you all seem to think has a liberal bias,”</p>
<p>I give you former democratic staffers, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos. Katie Couric and Brian Williams certainly skew to the left as do Olbermann and Anderson Cooper (I LOVE Anderson Cooper), Dan Rather, of course, as well as the late Peter jennings. The NY Times is liberal, the Washington Post, the LA Times. We have the NY Post, the editorial page of the WSJ and talk radio. Otherwise, your side has ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC. Yep. Leans left.</p>
<p>There’s a pew poll - just read it today- they don’t call them low info voters though. It’s partly my own observations too. If I find the time, I’ll dredge it up, but I’m losing patience with the whole liberal media tag - it’s just so nineties Zoose! Get with it - it’s the CORPORATE media and WHO do corporations like?</p>
<p>And my last one for the night from Elizabeth Edwards for the NYTimes :</p>
<p>"News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.</p>
<p>And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look, the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Everyone is so taken aback by Reverend Wright. It’s just political nonsense for those wanting to defeat Obama. Here are some words from one of the last speeches given by Dr. Martin Luther King. In 40 years what has changed and where or why is there the controversy today. Why is it that Wright still needs to speak to these issues and why is it that people find any fault in all this with Obama or some fault or wrongdoing at all… from Dr. King: </p>
<p>"You know, many years ago, America signed a huge promissory note which said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It didn’t say “some men,” it said “all men.” It didn’t say “all white men,” it said “all men,” which includes black men.</p>
<p>It said another thing which ultimately distinguishes our form of government from other totalitarian regimes. It said that every person has certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. In order to discover where they came from, it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity. They are God-given.</p>
<p>America hasn’t lived up to this. She gave the black man a bad check that’s been bouncing all around. We are going to demand our check, to say to this nation, “We know that that check shouldn’t have bounced because you have the resources in the federal treasury.” We are going to also say, “You are even unjustly spending five hundred thousand dollars to kill a single Vietcong soldier, while you spend only fifty-three dollars a year per person for everybody categorized as poverty-stricken.” Instead of spending thirty-five billion dollars every year to fight an unjust, ill-considered war in Vietnam and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, we need to put God’s children on their own two feet.</p>
<p>I ask you to make this the beginning of the Washington movement, to go in by the thousands. And help us stand up nonviolently yet militantly. We are going to plague Congress. Documents have been written. They say what ought to be done. But nothing has been done. Nothing is ever done until you put the pressure on.</p>
<p>We have great challenges ahead, and great possibilities. And let us not lose hope. When you lose hope you die. We’ve got to keep going. I know how difficult it is. We’ve got to have that kind of ‘in spite of’ quality, to say that we are going on anyhow. We will keep the kind of hope alive that will make us know that if we will unite, if we will organize, we will be able to dramatize these issues to the point that something will be done."</p>
<p>“it’s just so nineties Zoose! Get with it - it’s the CORPORATE media and WHO do corporations like?”</p>
<p>Do you ever encounter people who think differently than you do? Have different experiences? Seems like you view the world through a bubble.</p>
<p>“Coloradomom,
Low information voters aren’t necessarily uneducated nor lacking in intelligence, mostly lacking in time with a low interest in politics or being an informed citizen - you know, the kind of people that are still deciding when they enter the voting booth.”</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying, Lizschup, but I still respectfully disagree that many/most of O’Reilly’s followers fit into this category. To the contrary, the fact that they watch ANY show featuring an hour’s worth of political commentary Monday-Thursday seems to prove the opposite point.</p>