Last Friday, the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS presented a discussion of impeachment that was breathtakingly persuasive.

Here is part 1 of the program. heathr234 has the rest of the program on YouTube. Watch the whole thing. It is conveniently broken up into five parts, so take as much time as you need – but watch it.


This is must-see TV for anyone concerned about the welfare of our Constitutional Democracy. The commentaries on this program transcend party partisanship and ultimately amount to a plea for nothing less than patriotism. Why is there so little of this sort of journalism in practice these days?

Family boss Rupert Murdoch recently dispatched his PR Enforcer, Gary Ginsberg, to deliver a message to the New York Times. Murdoch was irked by a series of articles that exposed the way he and News Corp manipulated the media and politicians on behalf of his business interests. Unfortunately for Murdoch, his messenger was ambushed by an astute Clark Hoyt, the Times’ public editor.

Ginsberg wrote to Hoyt objecting to the series and alleging that the Times’ hidden intention was to throw a monkey wrench into Murdoch’s plans to acquire Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal. Ironically, Murdoch and Ginsberg had no such complaints about a similar story published by the Journal itself. Contrast Ginsberg’s assessments of each paper’s efforts:

Ginsberg on the NY Times: “the primary motivation for doing such an extensive investigation … was in the end self-serving and commercial.”

Ginsberg on the Journal: “a very fair, objective piece.”

Why were Ginsberg’s views at such variance when both stories came to essentially the same conclusions? As Hoyt keenly reminds us…

“Murdoch is going to extraordinary lengths to reassure The Journal’s newsroom that he will not interfere with its independence, as a long and well-documented record indicates he has elsewhere.”

In other words, it would have been unwise to criticize the Journal because that would confirm everyone’s worst fears about Murdoch’s egocentric ambitions. However, the truth is that by gaming the system with praise for one paper and scorn for the other when there was so little difference between them, Murdoch is demonstrating his compulsion to manipulate perceptions in his own favor.

Ginsberg had a laundry list of complaints about the Times’ story that Hoyt shot down in rapid succession. It almost seemed to easy. For instance, the Times reported on a firm that lobbied on behalf of News Corp. for tax breaks. Ginsberg objected saying that there was no such firm. Hoyt responded by simply naming the firm (Hogan & Hartson) and the fees they received.

In another example, Ginsberg thought that reporting that News Corp. paid lobbyists to influence regulatory and legislative matters was unfair because other media companies did so as well. Again, Hoyt easily defends the paper by pointing out that the existence of other firms engaging in lobbying activities does nothing diminish such activities by News Corp. Hoyt might have gone even further by observing that the other media company’s lobbying efforts were, for the most part, in concert with News Corp. and were seeking the same redress.

It is encouraging that Hoyt has made such a thorough and aggressive defense of a well-written expose of News Corp. and Murdoch. But it is disturbing that Murdoch’s henchman steps into the fray with a litany of lies and misrepresentations. And the fact that these complaints were directed at the Times should not give solace to the directors and employees of the Wall Street Journal. They are getting a panoramic view of what life under Murdoch would be like. And the best single piece of advice I can extend is to … be afraid!

When George W. Bush wants to assure himself that he’s exposed to a well-rounded assortment of views, he boldly reaches out to a diverse assembly of independent media professionals. He did so last Friday by calling in a group of pundits that would surely stimulate a healthy debate. Invited to this exclusive affair were:

• Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard
• Larry Kudlow of Kudlow & Co. on CNBC
• Michael Barone, senior writer for U.S. News and World Report
• Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post and Weekly Standard columnist
• Kathleen Parker, syndicated conservative columnist.

This is the right-wing’s right-wing. Larry Kudlow was overjoyed to learn that he was in with the In Crowd. The Chicago Tribune describes Kudlow’s gleeful anticipation of the gathering:

“Kudlow says he is looking forward to his meeting with Bush for, if nothing else, a mood-check on how the guy is faring.”

Now that’s a real journalist. He’s not looking forward to the mundane tasks of asking questions on behalf of his audience, nor to delve into the complexities of the President’s policies and plans. Kudlow is much more interested in Georgie’s feelings and how he is holding up under the strain. But is it the strain of being widely considered the worst president in history; the strain of sending other people’s children to their doom? It must be so hard on him.

Meanwhile, Barnes reported Bush’s perspective on how best to persuade the nation that his “unpopular war” was still a really good idea. He said the President didn’t view talking about success as the “most useful tool.” Barnes writes that…

“Instead, Bush said, the most compelling case for persevering in Iraq is ‘what failure will look like.’“

Perhaps talking about success is not so useful when there is such a dirth of it in Iraq. Talking about failure is much more consistent with this administration’s history of hammering fear into an anxious populace.

Barnes also quotes Bush making one of the most hilariously hypocritical statements yet to emerge from a president who has already set records in hypocrisy:

“‘There are lots of talkers in Washington,’ he said. But he’s not one of them. ‘I’m not on the phone chatting with the people who write those stories,'” the president insisted.

No, he’s chatting with them in the White House. He is actually chatting with the people that write the stories as he tells them that he doesn’t chat with them. Could anything be more absurd? Well, yes. How about Fred Barnes reporting that he learned in a chat with the President that the President doesn’t engage in chats with folks like himself?

It’s a twisted brand of logic – don’t hurt yourself trying to figure it out. It’s the same twisted behavior that accounts for the President spending precious moments with a cabal of columnists that are already on board the sinking ship of Bush’s state. What could they possibly hope to gain by entertaining these hacks? Their opinions are already squarely aligned with the administration. Their audience consists of the 26 percenters that believe Bush was ordained by God to lead us into the Apocalypse.

This isn’t even good propaganda. It is, however, reminiscent of the Radio Day Bush hosted on the North Lawn of the White House last October, a few days before the mid-term elections. About three dozen mostly conservative radio gabbers took up residence in a tent (insert circus jokes here) to interview the likes of Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.

As the President’s myopia further constricts his vision, you have to wonder what inspires these foolish media fanfests. The only explanation is that Bush is desperately lonely and he can’t find anyone else that will talk to him. He’s been abandoned by voters, and Republicans in Congress are peeling away like a bad sunburn. He may have reached the point where all he does have is Laura and Barney – and I wouldn’t be too sure of Barney.

Update: The Pentagon’s doing it too.

Pastor Fred Phelps, of “God Hates Fags” fame has condemned Bill O’Reilly to Hell. Not that O’Reilly needed any help getting there. Phelps labels O’Reilly the “spin doctor for his father the devil” in a nearly incoherent rant that cites numerous bible verses. Heed thee the word of the Lord and get thee behind me Bill-O…

Until now I hadn’t realized just how much O’Reilly and Phelps have in common. They both…

• rant incoherently.
• promote traditional values.
• possess the one and only truth.
• expose and denounce evil secularists.
• lament the persecution of Christians.
• believe in their own infallibility.
• accuse the media of a personal bias.
• preach to a congregation of mindless disciples.

Phelps, of course, is a joke whose ramblings, while repulsive, will have little impact on society. O’Reilly, on the other hand, broadcasts his dementia into millions of homes where the naive and uninformed are susceptible to the hatred and divisiveness he employs to incite the worst in people. He is a 21st century Father Coughlin and we cannot be rid of him too soon.

Bill O’Reilly: Propaganda Pimp
In a roomful of egomaniacal bloviating pundits, Bill O’Reilly would stand out as a towering infernal display of delusional demagoguery. Almost any random sampling of The O’Reilly Fester will reveal a man obsessed with his own righteousness.


Click the link above to experience an interactive portrait of O’Reilly that puts his unique abuse of language on display.

Eleven months ago, I wrote about plans for the renovation of the White House Press Briefing Room. It was originally projected to take a month, then three months, then nine months. So today’s announcement that the new facility is finally opening means that they were only two months or ten months over schedule depending on which projection you use.

But this ribbon cutting ceremony for the new hub of Official Mendacity has already set the symbolic course for a future of coloring and/or dodging the truth.

First, as the AP reports, the entire affair was a sham that excluded much of the press for whom it was intended.

“Bush’s appearance was timed for network morning shows, though media attendance in the room was severely limited to make space for White House staff and construction workers.”

Then, in this room where the White House is expected to answer reporter’s questions, the President appeared briefly and flippantly refused to answer any questions:

“I’ll, like, listen, internalize, play like I’m going to answer the question, and then smile at you and just say, gosh thanks, thanks for such a solid, sound question.”

That’s a pretty good start, and tells us much about what we might expect to take place here in the future.