The PBS debut of Bill Moyers Journal’s “Buying the War”, has provoked the media’s preeminent bully into a veritable frenzy. We can almost certainly expect Bill O’Reilly to air a post-broadcast rant on the dangers of the secular-progressive, far-left, presentation of committed left-wing loony, Moyers, because nothing is more terrifying to O’Reilly and his ilk than the truth.

And, as we know, the truth has a well known left-wing bias (h/t Colbert).

But in fact, Bill didn’t even wait for the program to air. Borrowing from Bush’s playbook, Bill O’Reilly has been attacking preemptively:

Bill Moyers. Wednesday night, he’s going to take a big shot at the press on PBS. We know he’s in bed with Soros.

The absurdity of that non-sequitor illustrates just how unhinged O’Reilly has become. He sees enemies around every corner, probably trying to pollute our precious bodily fluids.

More from O’Reilly:

…and Bill Moyers at PBS. – In fact, as president of the Shoeman [sic] Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a $500,000 transfer of money to Media Matters.

Of course, that is a lie that Bill had to acknowledge the following night – although without troubling himself to apologize.

And there’s this::

Tomorrow, PBS will broadcast a documentary by committed leftist Bill Moyers that charges the American media, especially the conservative media, gleefully embraced war with Iraq and smeared anyone who disagreed with the action.

Moyers takes a special pride in denigrating FOX News and talk radio in his presentation. Now I supported the action against Saddam because the Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, the CIA, British intelligence, and a variety of other intelligence agencies all told me Saddam was making dangerous weapons in violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire. We did our own original reporting here.

Now I based my decision on the best available information, not on any ideological belief. I was wrong in my assessment, as was everybody else. But it was an honest mistake.

O’Reilly is just admitting that he is dolt – believing the same lies from the same administration shills, then asserting that that was a demonstration of “original reporting.” How is swallowing propaganda from government lackeys even remotely connected to journalism? And his contention that everyone believed the same thing ignores the millions of people worldwide who took to the streets to defiantly object to the lies and the policy that was supported by those lies. Finally, he issues a disingenuous mea culpa that hardly makes up for all the death and misery that ensued as a consequence of his “honest mistake”.

But I think I know what’s stuck in Bill’s craw. A couple of years ago, Bill exposed the festering wound that has become an infected mass of puss and bile:

…he [Moyers] wins another big award announced today. A Polk Award. So he got a Peabody and a Polk. They just love him.

Do you think Bill-O is just a bit jealous? He had to lie about getting a Peabody, then lied again saying that he won Polk (for a program that he had left two years earlier). The envy is palpable, and has been stewing for years.

Keeping things in perspective it must be noted that clear majorities of the American people will agree with Moyers that the press was pathetically inadequate and criminally negligent, in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But just to be on the safe side, we should let Moyers and PBS know that there is an appreciation for courageous, responsible journalism, and we will vote with our dollars, our eyeballs, and our hearts, to ensure that there is more of it. Send your thoughts here:

Bill Moyers Journal: Feedback

Michael Milken’s 10th Annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles hosted some of the media’s top executive honchos, including News Corp overlord Rupert Murdoch, who was in a talkative mood. Following are a few choice quotes.

Stating the obvious, Murdoch accurately critiques our President’s prowess at incoherence:
“I’m a supporter of President Bush, but I do believe he is a bad, inadequate communicator. He seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears.”

But this doesn’t dim the glow of his schoolboy crush:
“…whereas he is the most persuasive and strong and articulate person when you meet him. This is really a problem.”

Addressing fellow maven, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch commiserates their isolation in the media world and seems confused as to why everybody else doesn’t worship Bush as much as they do:
“Apart from your newspaper and mine (the New York Post), there’s a sort of monolithic attack on (Bush) every day of the year. People want to destroy him.”

Murdoch suspects that the animosity towards Bush is rooted in religious persecution (America is notoriously anti-Christian) and or resentment for having perverted democracy. It certainly couldn’t be for waging a disasterous and unnecessary war and presiding over the most corrupt administration in history:
“They don’t like him, whether it’s because of his religious conviction or whatever, or the outcome of the 2000 election. He has a history of things there which seem to have built up the situation where, in Washington today, the atmosphere is absolutely toxic.”

But there is some good news:
“You can’t really expect anything to be achieved in the next 18 months (of his presidency). That is a very serious, sad problem of this country.”

In their desperation to come up with a sensationalistic scenario with which to exploit the tragedy in Virginia, the media are wallowing in a “blame something (anything)” cesspool of speculation. This is just another example of how shallow the media’s analysis can be.

This time the culprit is video games. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Jack Thompson, an anti-video game zealot, has been making the rounds of the cable news nets promulgating his theories on the threat of gaming to civilization. With regard to VA Tech, he told Fox’ Bill Hemmer:

“To be able to pull this off, with this high body count, Bill, one has to have rehearsed it in able to do it.”

In subsequent appearances on NBC he flatly declared that Cho was a player of Counter-Strike.

The only problem with this is that, as Chris Matthews pointed out, Thompson has no evidence that any of his assertions true. In fact, there is substantial evidence, supported by first hand witnesses, that Cho never played video games at all during his time at VT.

But I guess the media can’t let facts get in the way of a juicy narrative when they are trying to squeeze a few more days of ratings frenzy from a very real human tragedy.

The presidential primary debate calendar just got a virtual boost with the addition of the first online-only candidate forums. The events will be sponsored by the Huffington Post, Yahoo, and Slate, and will be held this fall. There will be debates for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

To say that this was inevitable would be an extraordinary understatement. The Internet has become an inescapable component of modern politics. In many ways it is supplanting the conventional media. Whereas past campaigns kicked off with televised speeches before a cheering hometown throng, many of today’s leading candidates opted to announce their entry into the race via their web sites. Television and newspapers used to be the exclusive outlet for candidate alerts, attacks, and adorations, but now YouTube has emerged as an unparalleled cyber-promotions vehicle. And fund raising, for which conventional media was no more than a perch from which to beg for change, has been forever transformed by the Internet’s ability to act as a real-time ATM that collects donations 24/7.

The Internet is also the home of tens of millions of the most engaged citizens and activists. In these early days of Campaign ’08, while most Americans are oblivious to the nascent electioneering, the netroots are abuzz with a vibrant dialogue. So where better to hold the early debates? It allows the candidates to address what is perhaps the most active and well informed constituency amongst voters. These are the people who, once taking sides, will be the volunteers, contributors, advocates, and foot soldiers of the campaigns as they mature.

Credit must be given to the debate’s sponsors for stepping forward with this initial effort. Whether or not it meets expectations rests with the execution. The candidates will be appearing from remote locations, which leverages one of several unique characteristics of online communications. Another is the ability for viewers to participate by asking questions and blogging the answers as quickly as they come.

But will the sponsors introduce any innovations that exploit the revolutionary advantages of new media? For instance, a connected community can produce instant reactions to candidate statements. The conventional media might use such a facility as another in a series of trivial insta-polls. But new media could have this information displayed for candidates who could then be called upon to react to the real-time pulse of the audience. Also, questions submitted online could be analyzed and sorted so that the subjects of most interest to the audience are addressed. If the subjects that rank highest are displayed for the candidates, they could provide answers even if the host fails to introduce the question. In effect, the universe of viewers usurps the role of a unitary host.

This may not be desirable in all circumstances. There are certainly occasions when a talented journalist can construct a probing question that elicits more candid and revealing responses. I’m not sure the host selected for these debates, Charlie Rose, fills that description. My personal opinion of Rose is that he asks overly long questions that seem designed to showcase himself rather than his guest. But effective interviewers do exist and there will be plenty of opportunities for that sort of encounter when the conventional media holds their debates.

Overall, the debut of new media as a player in the debate debate is positive, encouraging, and timely. But it must also be viewed as an experiment. Whether it is looked back upon as a success, a failure, or something in between, should not be a hard-coded judgment, but a set of observations that can be employed when modeling the next phase of the experiment. I look forward to the research, and I hope that the sponsors open up the process to the blogiverse and incorporate our interests and creativity.

The White House Correspondents Association held their annual gala this evening and it was an affair to remember. Following on last year’s uneventful snoozefest with that Colbert guy, the WHCA scored a coup lassoing comedy legend Rich Little to headline the evening’s fare.

In his introduction, George Bush somberly stated that, due to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, he would not try to be funny. Little misunderstood and assumed the pledge applied to him as well. After thoughtfully warning the audience that he was just a “nightclub performer who does a lot of dumb, stupid jokes,” he wasted no time proving that. He was, however, generous in explaining each punch line for the often bewildered crowd. There was an abundance of opportunity to do so in the space where other performers would have been waiting for the audience’s laughter to subside. Little didn’t have that problem.

But the big treat of the evening was the star-studded guest list that included Morgan Fairchild, Teri Hatcher and at least two American Idol rejects. You know that a professional journalist’s organization has come of age when it can bring together such luminaries as George W. Bush and Sanjaya Malakar. If you wonder what these two celebrated talents have in common, just think about it for a moment and it will all become clear.

These are the headlines from Google News the evening after Alberto Gonzales testified before the U. S. Senate to explain the firing of U. S. Attorneys:

GOP Senator Calls for Gonzales to Resign – Forbes, NY
GOP Senator Calls for Gonzales to Resign – FOX News
Gonzales losing GOP support – Dallas Morning News
On a very hot seat with little cover and less support – Int’l Herald Tribune
Gonzales Endures Harsh Session With Senate Panel – New York Times
Gop Senator Calls For Gonzales To Resign – Guardian Unlimited
Gonzales losing GOP support – Houston Chronicle
Gonzales Rejects Call For His Ouster – Guardian Unlimited
White House says attorney gen’l has Bush’s ‘full confidence’ – MarketWatch
Gonzales Struggles to Sway Skeptics – ABC News
Gonzales rejects call for his ouster – Boston Globe
Gonzales’s Candor, Judgment Questioned by Senators – Bloomberg
Gonzales can’t sway skeptical senators – San Diego Union Tribune

Which of these things is not like the other? And how long will it be before Bush tells Gonzales that he’s doing, “a heckuva job?”