Moyers' Last NOW

[Stayne]

So, this happened a year and a half ago, but the information is still relavent today. This is Bill Moyers' last time hosting NOW, a show on PBS. He retired when the CPB started forcing right-wing ideology into PBS.

(Please excuse the wikipedia quote, it was the quickest way to concisely sum up what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOW_%28series%29)

In 2005, NOW came under further attack from Kenneth Tomlinson, the George W. Bush-appointed chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Without the CPB's permission, Tomlinson paid an outside consultant $14,000 to watch NOW with Bill Moyers and analyze the politics of the guests. Many, including the CPB-funded NPR, criticized the resulting "study" as being full of errors and a waste of money. The CPB funded two explicitly right-wing leaning shows, Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered and The Journal Editorial Report (produced by the Wall Street Journal editorial board), for "balance".

Now the video. Moyers uncovers (or points out) the powerful right-wing media, how it came to be, what its goals are, and who are the people behind it. Although the video quality is poor and even has some glitches, the audio is clear and the message is even clearer.

http://movies.ziaspace.com/NOW.wmv

I figure we might be able to have some good discussion on this. It brings up such questions as:

"What is journalism?" (Is it all just opinion as the right-winger stated?)
"Is non-biased reporting possible?"
"Is there such a thing as pure fact?"
"Is America's media broken, and if so, can it be fixed?"

[Cyberdemon]

Shows featuring pretty faces bad-mouthing the other side as "left-wing" or "right-wing" will always be popular not because the media tilts in any particular direction, but because stupid people opt for an easy way to badmouth the other side instead of a thoughtful consideration of the issues.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

[Zogo]

I wouldn't call tucker carlson "explicity right wing."

the democrats do this same BS..the democrats make written DEALS with the republicans on how the presidential debates are to be run every 4 years and we're supposed to feel bad for them? the parties that get the shaft in this country are third parties like the green party, libertarian party, socialist party and constitution party.

"What is journalism?" (Is it all just opinion as the right-winger stated?)

it's an opinion on how it should be represented. cold, hard facts aren't an opinion though.

"Is non-biased reporting possible?"

yes, but it would be pretty complex and very few would read/listen to it..let alone understand it.

"Is there such a thing as pure fact?"

probably if it's really concise.

"Is America's media broken, and if so, can it be fixed?"

it's always been broken..there have always been tons of misinformed people on every topic under the sun..no it can't be fixed. "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[munks]

Wow,

"Do you think what Sean Hannity said is fair?"
"Absolutely."
"There's no fact to back it up, there's no effort to substantiate it with documentation."
"That's what journalism is, it's opinion."

Did he really just fucking say that?


I wouldn't call tucker carlson "explicity right wing."
hahahahaha oh zogo you're so funny

[SithDrummer]

Facts aren't objective unless you have all of them. "Spin" is the art of downplaying or ignoring some of them.

[Zogo]

hahahahaha oh zogo you're so funny

are you saying he's just a right wing shill? if so, what are you basing that on? he holds liberal/libertarian viewpoints on a few issues.


I'd reserve "explicity right wing" for people like limbaugh, hannity, cavuto.

[Stayne]

The point isn't really what any person's stance is, but its the way the "news" is presented. Moyers tries to point out that news anchors have been held to certain standards (what the other guy calls "rules"). The job of the media is to inform the public. That information makes the media the 4th arm of the government. Its the arm that allows a democracy to truly be a government "by the people". If the people are ignorant, its impossible for them to do anything but be blindly led along by the loudest voice.

Currently the loudest voice, as Moyers points out, is the republican propoganda machine. The conservative radio hosts and the "fair and balanced" Fox News are, in the words of Jon Stewart, partisan hacks (Many liberals do the same thing for thier party, but don't have as loud of voices). They are hacks b/c they claim to be informing the public, but what they are actually doing is manipulating the public. Instead of being the 4th arm of the government, one that keeps the other 3 in check, they have become a tool of the GOP.

All the while, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and others still claim that the main stream media is liberal. They are doing all they can to discredit not only the information that might come from any source, but trying to discredit the source itself.

I agree that there will always be political pundits, and there will always be an audience to listen to them. The problem becomes when political pundits claim to be giving "fair and balanced" news. This problem has been growing in the USA for some time. Every day that it exists and the public listens to it, democracy dies a little more.

Why don't the other channels compete with it? Why can't CBS, ABC, or CNN still give good information that could offset the bullshit spewed out on FOX and its related radio broadcasts? Is it the jazzy newsflash splash-screens and music on FOX? Is it that it that americans are really just simple-minded, intellectually lazy folks who would rather be told how to think than be given the information and come to thier own conclusions?

I do think that America's media is broken. It is impossible to get good information. Everything is politically charged. Everything is spun. Even the things that are reported aren't always substantiated. The standards of american news media have fallen to sensationalism and entertainment. Its all a fight for ratings.

How can it be fixed? Possibly by reasserting a standard. We all know there is a difference between the Weekly World News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/) and USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/) ("Yeah, the WWN helps the MIB catch aliens!"). Perhaps a clearer divide can be made between Television news programs and political punditry. Maybe News programs could earn an accredidation from a Journalism Society, similar to the way universities have to maintain specific standards to keep accredidation. Maybe the word "News" can only be used in the title of accredited programs (and then we'll feed all the hungry people, save the whales, and live in peace and harmony for ever and ever! (http://media-server.amazon.com/media/B00005JIYC001019/I%20Want%20To%20Conquer%20The%20World.mp3) ).

Well, just some thoughts on the topic. Moyers' interview really impressed me. It drove home the difference between informers and manipulators. And our media today is full of manipulators.

[Zogo]

Its the arm that allows a democracy to truly be a government "by the people". If the people are ignorant, its impossible for them to do anything but be blindly led along by the loudest voice.

and that's the way it's going to remain I'm afraid. I don't believe in democracy anymore. the founding fathers didn't either.

Currently the loudest voice, as Moyers points out, is the republican propoganda machine.

it's the loudest because it's what the majority of the older generation wants to hear. this is the generation that grew up with transistor radios.

I don't know ANYone my age that listens to talk radio.

All the while, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and others still claim that the main stream media is liberal.

it's impossible to define something as large and complex as "the media" in such duopolistic terms. and anyone who tries to is just BS'ing.

I agree that there will always be political pundits, and there will always be an audience to listen to them. The problem becomes when political pundits claim to be giving "fair and balanced" news.

"fair and balanced" is just a hollow phrase. how can news be balanced anyway? balanced between republican and democrat agendas? is that fair? obviously not. ask all 300 million people here and you'll get 300million definitions of "fair."

This problem has been growing in the USA for some time. Every day that it exists and the public listens to it, democracy dies a little more.

actually in the grand scheme of things looking over the past century I think it's improving. it's only the realization that people are misinformed that is leading us down this path of being disullisioned.

Why don't the other channels compete with it? Why can't CBS, ABC, or CNN still give good information that could offset the bullshit spewed out on FOX and its related radio broadcasts?

first you have to realize that a lot of these channels are owned by the same groups/people. second, some channels do. olbermann on MSNBC makes o'reilly look like an idiot just about every week.

Is it the jazzy newsflash splash-screens and music on FOX? Is it that it that americans are really just simple-minded, intellectually lazy folks who would rather be told how to think than be given the information and come to thier own conclusions?

conditioned to be advertised. I don't think people have a conscience thought of "I want to be told exactly what to believe." it just happens.

I do think that America's media is broken. It is impossible to get good information. Everything is politically charged. Everything is spun. Even the things that are reported aren't always substantiated. The standards of american news media have fallen to sensationalism and entertainment. Its all a fight for ratings.

prove that the news was good like you say it was. have you read a paper from 100 years ago? some of the claims and writings are more ridiculous then anything I've seen in this day.

How can it be fixed?

it can't..you can't stamp out human behaviors.