Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« What Adam Said to Eve | Main | Poll: Net Freedom or Limitation? »

Response to "My Fellow Texan"

Rick Byrne, Director of Communications, BILL MOYERS JOURNAL:

In his comment on the blog, Mr. Deal Hudson has asked Bill Moyers to apologize for his piece about Karl Rove's departure (watch here), which aired last Friday, August 17. Hudson posted part of an email he says he received from Rove after Hudson sent him a copy of Moyers' comments. Rove replied to Hudson: "I am a believing Christian who attends his neighboring Episcopal parish church."

It is not surprising that Deal Hudson would take on the role of defending Karl Rove. They have been allies in implementing the very political strategy for religion of which Bill Moyers was critical. According to this published report, Mr. Hudson was an adviser to the Republican National Committee and a "regular White House visitor" where he helped implement Rove’s efforts to coordinate conservative Christian and Republican politics.

One conservative Catholic activist was quoted in the story as saying: "The White House has a Catholic strategy and its name is Deal Hudson." Mr. Hudson himself wrote in a November 2003 letter, also quoted in the report: "I continue to lead an informal Catholic advisory group to the White House, as well as communicate with various White House personnel almost every day regarding appointments, policy, and events. These efforts have helped to place faithful, informed Catholics in positions of influence."

Rove’s statement to Mr. Hudson was similar to what Rove said on Sunday, August 19, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday when he was shown a clip from Bill Moyers' comments by anchor Chris Wallace. Yesterday, Bill Moyers addressed the Chris Wallace interview and Rove's reaction to the clip in a letter to Fox News Sunday below:

August 21, 2007


Chris Wallace
Fox News Sunday

Dear Chris Wallace:

I just came upon your interview last Sunday with Karl Rove during which you asked him to respond to my comments on his departure from the White House. It appears that you only selected a one-sentence excerpt from what I said. The sentence you used reads: “You have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian Right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator.” Without any challenge or follow-up from you, Rove said that he is a Christian, goes to church, and is an Episcopalian, and that “Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.”


Now, what I said, after discussing Rove’s documented appeals to religious prejudice for partisan purposes, was: “At his press conference this week he [Rove] asked God to bless the President and the country, even as reports were circulating that he himself had confessed to friends his own agnosticism; he ‘wished he could believe, but he cannot.’ That kind of intellectual honesty is to be admired, but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian Right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator.”


If you had checked, you would have found that his agnosticism, or questioning of faith, has indeed been in the news specifically in connection to his political expediency in the manipulation of believers. There were several references to it online as well as in print journalism last week. The San Antonio Express News, which knows Rove well, wrote in an editorial (August 14): “The White House will miss his indubitable political acumen. What other agnostic could have mobilized hundreds of thousands of conservative Christians behind a political banner?” On TheAtlantic.com (“No One Like Karl Rove,” August 13) Marc Ambinder wrote: “I could be wrong here, but I distinctly recall conversations with Rove friends who’ve told me that his struggles with faith did not lead him to Jesus Christ. Yet he knew and understood how to interact with (and manipulate, at times) the standard-bearers of the evangelical Right and the Catholic conservative intellectual elite.....” James Moore (“The Rove Goes on Forever”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com ) wrote that “[Rove] told his friend Bill Israel years ago that he was agnostic and that ‘he wished he could believe, but he cannot.’” In their book on Rove, Wayne Slater, former Austin bureau chief for The Dallas Morning News, and Moore, a veteran journalist write: “Rove once told a colleague that he had no religious affiliation and was ‘not a Christian.’” And so on and so on and so on. All of these sources were available to you as they were to me.

Obviously Rove wanted to blow smoke because his version of reality is undermined by his own previous statements and by the reporting and analysis of journalists who have done their homework and don't take his every word as gospel – no pun intended.

Sincerely,

Bill Moyers

Mr. Hudson says that he has written to the PBS Ombudsman to protest Mr. Moyers' comments about Karl Rove. He posts that letter on his own blog, where he mentions a previous column by the Ombudsman on another Bill Moyers Journal episode but fails to note Mr. Moyers' response, which you can read below to see the whole story.

July 24, 2007

Dear Mr. Getler: [PBS Ombudsman]

I respect your work and your role, but I disagree with you about “balance.” The journalist’s job is not to achieve some mythical state of equilibrium between two opposing opinions out of some misshapen respect -- sometimes, alas, reverence -- for the prevailing consensus among the powers-that-be. The journalist’s job is to seek out and offer the public the best thinking on an issue, event, or story. That’s what I did regarding the argument for impeachment. Official Washington may not want to hear the best arguments for impeachment -- or any at all -- but a lot of America does. More than four out of ten people indicated in that recent national poll that they favor impeaching President Bush and more than five out of ten, Vice President Cheney. They’re talking impeachment out there and that dynamic in public opinion is news. There’s a movement for impeachment, not one against impeachment, and to fail to explore the arguments driving that movement would be as foolish as when Washington journalists in the months before the invasion of Iraq dared not talk about “occupation” because official sources only wanted to talk about “liberation.” Letting the official consensus govern the conversation is also to let it decide the subject.


So to hear the best arguments driving public sentiment, I invited on my broadcast a conservative scholar who reveres the Constitution, Bruce Fein, and a liberal political journalist, John Nichols, who has written a fine book on the historical roots of impeachment. That two men of different philosophies come to the same conclusion on this issue is in itself newsworthy, and they made a valuable contribution to the public dialogue, as confirmed by the roughly 20:1 positive response to the broadcast. Of course I could have aired a Beltway-like “debate” between a Democrat and a Republican, or a conservative and a liberal, but that’s usually conventional wisdom and standard practice, and public broadcasting was meant to be an alternative, not an echo. If a debate about impeachment becomes the story, I’ll come back with different guests to explore it. Right now it’s the argument for impeachment that is shaping public opinion, and that’s why I chose to interview two informed thinkers who have arrived at the same destination from very different directions.


A personal note: Pinned to the bulletin board on the wall behind my computer -- I am looking at it now -- is the column you wrote in January calling on public broadcasting to “be more…aggressive,” including on the issue of, yes, impeachment. I took encouragement from that column over these months as I tracked grassroots activity and the growing public conversation on the subject across the country. I was cheered by your assertion in the same column that “‘on-the-one-hand/on-the-other hand’ type of journalism that is much more common can be less than enlightening at times such as these...” In thinking that you imagined public broadcasting as a service, not a sedative, I trust I wasn’t misreading your New Year’s resolution.

By the way, we did not remove any controversial postings from our Web site, as indicated in your critique. We welcome all points of view and responses to our programs on our blog.

Sincerely,

Bill Moyers


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/441

Comments

moyers, a man who hitched his wagon to the crooked rising star of texas, lbj. suspect. mechanic of the international peace corp, suspect. promoter of theosophist/crypto facist joeseph campbell. suspect. moyers, cloaked behind the stagecraft and image of the international corporate elite foundation sponsored pbs, suspect. suspect everything that pours from the mouth and pen of this shadowy figure.

No one buys into his koolaide anymore, except for the 28% sheeple diehards.
The Republicans have had six and a half years to distort reality and re-write history, now its time to get back to earth. John

This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, John.

This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, John.

This is different from other "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on , CBS, CNNNBC, FOX and MSNBC, and passed off as "news." The Moyers' Journal is also why I support PBS. Moyers is a great journalist and a very good interviewer. When I read the comments on Rove, I an very proud. It was clear that many of Moyers' critics didn't see the program, seldom and watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, John.

This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, Bill.

This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, John.

This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, John

Yes, name-calling and labeling is uncalled for. We teach our children not to do that.

A smattering of the "love" for Moyers from the right-wingers (you know yourselves) is cited at end, below.

(Moyers is called a hateful, leftist, anti-American wimp... tells "lies, Propaganda..." )

Ironic, huh? and y'all call Moyers "hateful..."

Propaganda - that is exactly what you need to recognize in your own brains - you know the RW songs by heart, don't care if they're lies, you so love the tune - makes you feel good and right, blaming the "left" for all that is wrong.
Meanwhile, these proto-fascists take advantage of your support to take what they can, at a heavy price to our treasury, our rights, our security even...
It's not the "left" who have messed things up - it's the strong-arming righties who have decimated America over the last six years, counting on bumping up "patriotism" and fear to push the agenda. See "Hitler" or "Goebbells" in wikipedia for a relevant case in point...

Y'all have been dead wrong, on two counts - in buying the message put out, and in supporting the executing of the message content itself - i.e., policies that have failed America...

The facts speak for themselves - that this is a failed, deceitful presidency - if given a chance to air out, that is...
Seldom is that the case, though...sad to say.

Fox Noise is decidedly anti-fact... just a tool of the right.

Moyers has opinions, and a bias -- toward truth.
Does "truth" have a liberal bias? Seems so...all anyone has to do is try to pose an honest question, and they are unquestionably "left."

So get a brain transplant -that seems about all you have left to cure you, righties...

The original point stands - Rove has claimed himself agnostic, yet panders to the unquestioningly faithful - indeed, that is the mindset they have found very convenient to tap and take advantage of.

Hypocrisy and lies lead the faithful in the rw way ...

Read "Conservatives without Conscience" for an eye-opener, righties...

Dale O.

below the rw hatemails cited:
" Fox News is a private cable news show. PBS is a public, taxpayer-funded news and information station, but is somehow dominated by leftists, including the pathetic and senile Mr. Moyers.

The answer is simple, have your communist friend George Soros start his own private cable news network, and he can have his leftist friends like Moyers and the kooks from MoveOn spew their anti-American rhetoric 24 hours a day. No problem.


Again, as always, it seems appropriate to ask why taxpayer funds are being used to support a hateful leftist and anti-American wimp like Bill Moyers.

His lies and propaganda about Karl Rove are par for his filthy course.

Mr. Moyers,
Chris Wallace embarrassed you on Fox News this Sunday -- and deservedly so -- for your shoddy "reporting" on Mr. Rove. Why don't you just admit it -- you are a liberal and can't take your bias out of a story you cover. You might as well just call your show "The Moyers Factor."

Mr. Moyers, Please interview Mr. Rove before you pronouce that you know anything about the man. Your Left Wing hatred for Republicans is always on your sleeve, and it appears that your fans only want to attack people personally. Let the facts be known first.

If Rove has questioned his faith, good for him. That's better than some political KOOLAID drinkers. I have done the same and yet would find it rude for someone else to try to peg my beliefs based on what other people say, or think they heard.

Wallace got one thing right:
Moyers has dropped the ball in taking on something like this on hearsay, and not at least talking to Rove.

It was a sloppy work of journalism.. but since it is clear Moyers is no longer a journalist but a partisan politlcal writer..all he needs to do is give up the illusion of being anything else and then Wallace will have nothing to critisize.


Rick Byrne, Director of Communications for Bill Moyers' Journal has indicated that he tried repeatedly to contact Rove by mail and fax prior to the Wallance comments. He received no reply. Clearly, Moyers' comments on Rove were "editorial." As one listener pointed out, the comments came at the end of the show and were clearly different from the previous segments. This is entirely different from the thousands of "editorials" comments made by "journalists" on CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox and passed off as "news." The Bill Moyers' Journal is one of the reasons I support PBS. Moyers is, I believe a first rate journalist and a splendid interviewer--and a deeply religious man. When I listened and watched the comments on Rove, I wanted stand up and cheer, and that after hearing nothing but nauseating fawning by almost all of what passes for news media in the country. By the way, it was clearly apparent that many of Moyers' critics didn't watch that program, seldom, if ever, watch the Journal, and are professional Moyers' haters. Thank you, Bill.

The four sources boil down to the SAME source (or no source) - Slater & Moore's book "The Architect," which in turn relies on Bill Israel -- who is now out promoting his upcoming book on Karl Rove, due out in January. Check it out, all of it, please.

Moyers cites Slater, Slater & Moore's book, Moore's article, and some editorials and comments which give no source at all. Tell me that is four corroborating sources!

hmm... at least four corraborating sources relating direct conversations with rove on the subject of his faith - or lack thereof, - sounds like pretty good reporting to me. it's also relevant to the fact that rove manipulates christian conservatives to garner votes for his client. chris wallace owes bill moyers an apology. i wont hold my breath

"My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul."

Harvey Leroy "Lee" Atwater (February 26, 1951 – March 29, 1991)


I can't imagine a better argument for agnosticism than Karl Rove. If his actions are guided by faith, well, what decent person would want those values. Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter ... yeah, real nice values.

Republican't:

Can't tell the truth, can't obey the law, can't govern, can't take it.

I hope students in J Schools get to study Moyers. So much talk about "role models," so little action and so few worthy models in the MSM.

Sisyphus

Karl Rove's "Twilight Zone" "Smoke and Mirrors" machine has run out of gas.
Good is evil. Up is down. Black is white.
No one buys into his koolaide anymore, except for the 28% sheeple diehards.
The Republicans have had six and a half years to distort reality and re-write history, now its time to get back to earth.
You idiots are so YESTERDAY!

Congratulations to Bill Moyers for continuing to have the guts to say and report things which the corporate mainstream media are too timid or ideological to point out. Apparently, Rove has been intimidating journalists for years. I wouldn't believe him even if he purported to have videotape of himself entering a church every Sunday of every year. He is, purely and simply, a liar who will say anything which he thinks will benefit him or his causes. One thing I fear is that with our government and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the grip of the right-wing they will take Mr. Moyers off the air. Give 'em hell, Bill.

The truth has a liberal bias. So sorry Mr. Wallace.

It seems to me it's Chris Wallace who is light in the fact checking department. How much was this donation and when was it made? Does Rove have a steady record of tithing to his church? Wallace should have interviewed the priest and fellow parishioners at the church Rove claims to attend. I wouldn't trust a word out of Karl Rove's mouth without independent verification and it looks like Wallace isn't doing due dilligence here.

And Flyboy Bush? He refused a direct order to take a medical examination right after drug testing was instituted and was banned from flying in 1972. The future Chickenhawk-in-Chief then went AWOL. Private Eddie Slovik must be rolling in his grave right now.

http://www.awolbush.com/

Nothing makes me more skeptical than a politician sitting in a pew.

If one truly believed, a lightning would be formal apparel.

Rove is a liar and a fraud.

Slam dunk Chris Wallace! Bill once you had the facilities to actually express interesting points of view. But now age or whatever has changed you into a pathetic fool.

Mark: "I'm a liberal, and nothing would get me on the Sean Hannity or any of the Fox news 'reporters' websites."

Thanks for making our point, Mark. Fox News is a private cable news show. PBS is a public, taxpayer-funded news and information station, but is somehow dominated by leftists, including the pathetic and senile Mr. Moyers.

The answer is simple, have your communist friend George Soros start his own private cable news network, and he can have his leftist friends like Moyers and the kooks from MoveOn spew their anti-American rhetoric 24 hours a day. No problem.

Again, as always, it seems appropriate to ask why taxpayer funds are being used to support a hateful leftist and anti-American wimp like Bill Moyers.

His lies and propaganda about Karl Rove are par for his filthy course.

Complaints about the column:

-insulting/mocking; desire for better discourse on PBS
-no sourcing/inadequate sourcing of central "fact"
-disrespect of audience; broad assumptions of citizen bigotry and ignorance.

I doubt those complaining would be aghast or feel betrayed if Rove was agnostic. That assumption also rests on broad, negative stereotyping, as well as the notion that we continually orient ourselves to Karl Rove in some way. Sheesh.

Take heart, a few complaints aren't the end of the world; they're free speech, citizens speaking to power (Moyers and PBS).

Sounds as though Mr. Getler doesn't believe in the importance of questioning or respectful debate.

The majority of opinions expressed here regarding Mr. Moyers' opinions are ill-conceived. Those who are making their observations have never really listened to the many hours of interviews done by Mr. Moyers on the varieties of religious experience and expression. Perhaps they are like those paid to attend the opera and "boo" to taint otherwise favorable performance. Mr. Moyers is not condemning Mr.Rove for his agnosticism. He is condemning him for his hypocrisy and manipulation of many well-intentioned, but duped Americans. And that is what truly angers them; that it is dawning on them just how like sheep, they have been led astray. It just goes to show how miserably we have failed to educate ourselves to always question and have informed, often heated, but respectful dialogue.

Mr. Moyers chose this issue to help us understand that Mr. Rove isn't going away any time soon and to keep watch in the night.

Wow this place reeks of wingnut droppings.

The stench reminds me of my uncle Fess's chicken roost on a hot July day.

Peace is Patriotic and Rove is a Traitor sure as rain on the plain.

Sounds as though Mr. Getler doesn't believe in the importance of questioning or respectful debate.

The majority of opinions expressed regarding Mr. Moyers' opinions are ill-conceived. Those who are making their observations have never really listened to the many hours of interviews done by Mr. Moyers on the varieties of religious experience and expression. Mr. Moyers is not condemning Mr.Rove for his agnosticism. He is condemning him for his hypocrisy and manipulation of many well-intentioned, but duped Americans. And that is what truly angers them; that it is dawning on them just how like sheep, they have been led astray. It just goes to show how miserably we have failed to educate ourselves to always question and have informed, often heated, but respectful dialogue.

Mr. Moyers chose this issue to help us understand that Mr. Rove isn't going away any time soon and to keep watch in the night.

I just wonder if some of these postings lambasting Bill Moyers are not using pseudonyms for someone like Ann Coulter, who I am sure would not want her name connected with something unless she was being paid for it. There was one even very aptly named Jack S. who certainly was.

Mr. Moyers,
Chris Wallace embarrassed you on Fox News this Sunday -- and deservedly so -- for your shoddy "reporting" on Mr. Rove. Why don't you just admit it -- you are a liberal and can't take your bias out of a story you cover. You might as well just call your show "The Moyers Factor."

Thanks Bill, for making the waning days of smug Republican rule a little less comfy.

So now Rove is pretending to be religious? That's OK, so is Mitt Romney.

Both of them have pretty clear track records. Rove admitted he didn't have a religion, and Romney sold porn.

Can there be anything phonier than a Republicans' faith?
.

What's even more eye-rolling is how the PBS ombudsman correctly slams Moyers for the non-debate hit piece on impeachment, and yet Moyers refuses to acknowledge the very salient points that blast his show into microscopic chunks.

Chris Wallace proves Bill Moyers' very point. Moyers warns that journalists should be wary of taking Rove's every word as gospel. Yet Chris Wallace does exactly that, as clearly seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP0YwxB0LOE and http://www.artsmart.tv/wmv/ChrisWallace.wmv .

Chris Wallace proves that he deeply inhales the smoke that Karl Rove blows. "Fair and Balanced?" No. Rather, a bit more than Fairly Gullible.

I love how all the Rove, Bush etc supporters state that Moyers is a terrible and unimportant reporter. Yet here they are in full force on his website? Seems like he might be fairly relevant afterall? I'm a liberal, and nothing would get me on the Sean Hannity or any of the Fox news 'reporters' websites. Typical right wing attact attack mentality. I'm sure Rush or a similar agent is behind this focused behavior... like sheep you all follow. Rove is an agnostic and you all know it. Moyers would have been better served by saying 'alleged agnostic' in his story. But seriously, this is a small issue with an extreme overreaction.

Wow. I didn't know Karl Rove and GWB had any fans/defenders left! But they're all coming to this blog, apparently. It must really take a lot of work to reconcile your brain to that kind of cognitive dissonance, at this point: to believe that Rove and Bush aren't liars and are really working for the good of the country.

'Reporting is easier when you don't worry about the facts'
Chris Wallace should know. He and FOX news are the experts when it comes to reporting without worrying about the facts!

It looks like Rove's Cronies are spamming the comments section. How very desperate.

Bill, I love your show, but this is looking like carelessness. I hope you'll investigate further and either make your case or apologize for making unsupported insinuations.

Personally, I believe Rove is a hypocrite and a liar, but until someone proves this allegation about Rove not being a Christian, I'd say the benefit of the doubt is going to be on his side and not yours.

Asking Karl Rove about his faithfulness won't produce any "facts" other than what he says is true. Faith cannot proven or disproved by it's very nature. His assertion doesn't need to be confirmed or denied by Karl Rove personally. It is also possible that his faith has wavered in the past. Do you believe the bible when it says there is a special place in hell for those who use the faith of others to achieve their own earthly goals?

Yes AC,

Sy Hersh and Bill Moyers are in the same mold. They are both hard core leftists. At least Hersh is honest enough to admit it. Neither of them are great journalists. Moyers is a press secretary, a flack, a propagandist, a spinmeister. Hersh is like the newspaper writer who becomes the one guy in town to whom the criminals like to surrender. That doesn't make that fellow a great crime fighter. The fact that Hersh is a bagman for any disgruntled military or national intelligence insider who wants to drop a bombshell, for infighting purposes or just for a little low risk treason, doesn't make him a great journalist either.

First off, Bill Moyers is a great journalist in the same mold as Sy Hersh. (Thanks Bill for all your hard work.)

Second, this explosive rant over Rove being referred to as an agnostic by Moyers (and many other media outlets) is yet another example of why this country so closely resembles a 3 ring circus.

Where's the outrage over Bush's sanction of torture? Or Bush's lies that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Or the nearly one million Iraqi deaths? Or . . .

Bush's (Rove's, Cheney's, etc.) "to do list" is as endless as it is shameless. Unfortunately, Fox News' taste for hypocrisy is just as long.

Hey Bill,

How's the character assassination business going? Looks like it's going gangbusters. That pious sounding sanctimoniousness with the soft Texas drawl is catnip in the liberal PBS bastions on both coasts.

Well, Bill, I don't care too much about Karl Rove, but I can't stand your hypocrisy. You don't think much of President Bush and you think he ducked out on military service on the basis of the confused, unsubstantiated, and scurrilous story of him "going AWOL" from his National Guard duty. Here’s how I weigh it out: George Bush flew for the Texas Air National guard, piloting an F-102. This was a challenging and inherently hazardous task. When buffoons like you, Bill, or churls like Paul Krugman mock him for this, I wonder to myself, would Bill Moyers or Paul Krugman have stepped up to a task requiring this level of physical courage? Did they?

However, my point is not to compare you to George Bush, it is to compare your former employer, Lyndon Johnson, to President Bush. We see that George Bush flew many flights in a very dangerous fighter jet. What about Lyndon Johnson? Well, gosh, he was a war hero. He won a Silver Star in World War II. Bill, you know the true story there:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/johnson.silver.star/story/storypage.html

"[H]istorians have called Johnson's decoration one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history."

George Bush fought hard for the election in 2000 -- including the Florida post-election matters. However, the fact is that that race was extremely close and either Gore or Bush had to be declared a winner. The other party was certain to feel aggrieved. Let's compare that election to the Lyndon Johnson senatorial election of 1948. See Robert Caro for details. No contest. On the sleaziness scale Lyndon is winner and still champ.

George Bush certainly benefited from family privilege throughout his business career. The size of the stake he was able to obtain in the Texas Rangers reflects this pattern. However, it is also true that the profits gained by him and other investors in the Rangers were the results of business success. Many investors made lots of money in professional sports during this same time frame.

On the other hand, Bill, I notice that you worked for KTBC in your younger days. Gosh, I wonder if the evolution of the licensing of that little $17,000 radio station into the $300,000,000 enterprise of today was purely the work of Lady Bird, part time business genius, or whether the abuser in chief got some untraceable chits paid in the form of plausibly deniable preferential treatment. Lyndon sure started out dirt poor, but he sure ended up filthy rich.

Well gosh, Bill, I guess all the lying, cheating, and hypocrisy were justifiable because you and ole Lyndon are and were champions of the underdog and upholders of the principles that have made America great.

Sorry, Bill, there is an American tradition of liberty, individual freedom, self-respect, and personal responsibility that predates you, the New Deal, and left wing prairie populism in general. The resurgence of traditional American values that you hate so much is not usurpation. It is a restoration of the true American way, and a rolling back of creeping socialism and statism. When you attack "corporatism", liberty is the collateral damage. When we who love freedom defend property and the other liberties, "equality of outcomes" is the collateral damage. I would rather give up equality of outcomes than liberty any day of the week.

I certainly don't want to be ruled by a disgusting creature like LBJ [or his only somewhat milder lineal descendents, the Clintons]; and I certainly don't want the spin to be disseminated by evil propagandists like Bill Moyers, Sid Blumenthal, Erskine Bowles, or Howard Wolfson.

A final question for all you PBS libs: When we have Universal Health Care like Canada has, and we have a law saying that it is illegal to buy any health care services beyond what the government sees fit to provide [I kid you not, that is the actual law in Canada], and you are therefore waiting in the long, long queue for your socialized medicine, do you think that Bill Moyers, Howard Wolfson, Sid Blumenthal, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi -- or any of their good friends -- will have to wait in that same line with you? If you think that, then you are a fool and you deserve whatever the prairie populist sells you.


Since when did facts matter to far left wing fanatical kook hacks like Moyers?

Bill Moyers is pathetic - sometimes even Karl Rover is right, especially when the subject of Karl Rove. This is tantamount to someone calling Bill Moyers a right-wing extremist and then not believing when Moyers protests that he is in fact a weak-kneed liberal. There is only one thing you can say to someone like Moyers who has the arrogance to dispute a man's own description of himself: What a JERK!

Bill Moyers is a pathetic, irrelevant partisan who peddles a liberal stump speech all around the country pretending that he's a guardian of all that is good and right about journalism. He's everything that a journalist shouldn't be, but he believes the bios that he writes about himself and continues to toddle on. It's hard to watch.

First I have to say that just because you ask someone like Rove a serious question and receive an answer it doesn't necessarily mean the response is accurate. Frequently the anecdotal evidence is more accurate. Goodell asked Michael Vick if he was involved in dog fighting and gambling on said fights and Vick said no, and we all see how accurate that statement was! Judging by how adroitly Rove has dodged subpoenas and requests for testimony under oath, I would question anything he says since his pattern has not been one that inspires trust. I also find it interesting that Chris Wallace was so combative in his response (much like the right wing responders here) in his final remarks - I expect better from him but he is obviously (and sadly more a creature of Fox News than I thought, and for that I am truly sorry.

"...These efforts have helped to place faithful, informed Catholics in positions of influence."

Nefarious. Tammany, a Phoenix on the Potomac. (Cuts into demo for Weekend Edition, too.)

Looks like the Republican operatives came out early to comment on this one. Thus taking advantage of the very service that Bill Moyer is fighting to maintain. One would call it ironic--like Bush saying, when the leader doesn't do what the people want, the people get rid of the leader (speaking of Maliki)--but I don't think Republicans understand irony.

Looks like the Republican operatives came out early to comment on this one. Thus taking advantage of the very service that Bill Moyer is fighting to maintain. One would call it ironic--like Bush saying, when the leader doesn't do what the people want, the people get rid of the leader (speaking of Maliki)--but I don't think Republicans understand irony.

Let Bill be. He's only got a few hacks left (hey, is that a pun?).

Someone said something to someone else years ago about what someone "might" have said and that's "responsible investigative journalism"? The National Enquirer and The Star combined do a better job than B. Moyers.

Thank you, tzeric, for that reasoned, moderate and on-topic response. Anything that can be said about Rove (anything disparaging, that is) must be true because of your insightful post.

Rove is a TRAITOR to America, for outing a CIA agent!
Cheney is a TRAITOR to America,
for lying us into war!
Bush is a TRAITOR to America,
for lying us into war!
For starting an illegal pre-emtive war!
For sneaky spying on Americans!
FOr not giving prisoners of war their Geneva rights!
For torture!
For countless times, breaking the laws of our country!

And Bill Moyers is a national treasure.

It looks like Chris Wallace won that round.

When Moyers questions Rove's faith, he should have asked him directly and not just rely on the reporting of others. It was unprofessional and dishonorable.

Shame on you bill.

Impeach and execute all of them. They are all enemies of democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut9-hgFbJWs

I get it now: Like the Duke non-rape case, the narrative was right but the facts were wrong.

Is it too much to ask Mr. Moyers to remove his sucker-shaped mouth from the public teat long enough to actually ask the people involved what the facts are?

Chris Wallace asked Rove directly.

And Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Moyers why he didn't do the same.

It's a good question, and the longer Mr. Moyers avoids it, the worse he looks.

The Most Unpatriotic Thing You Can Do..

...is to support a president unconditionally. It's funny how the Bush supporters will rationalize anything short of tyranny to defend the moron. He's not even making the decisions....Rove and Cheney have always been running the show . Giving Bush credit or blaming him for anything is like giving Ronald McDonald credit for a good burger at McDonald's and Karl Rove is a "bottom feeder" for the GOP. And his goal is to pit the Republicans and Democrats against each other, looks like hes doing a good job, just look at the neocons they are foaming at the mouth, just thinking about Bill Moyers voicing his thoughts about " Turd Blossom". LOL
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President (1858-1919)


Bill Moyers = asshat

What weak sources for Moyers's claim. An editorial used the word "agnostic"? That serves as proof? To be sure, this embarrassment by Moyers doesn't quite rank with his false attribution to James Watt of a desire to bring back Jesus by cutting down all the trees, but it's further proof that sanctimoniousness, like smoke, gets in your eyes.

If you’re going to question someone’s sincerity in their religious beliefs, you’d better have something better than third-hand hearsay. Liberals have been crying wolf for years about “christofacism” and “theocracy,” yet they seem to have no problem questioning and passing judgement on the sincerity of others’ religious beliefs.

Moyers should apologize, but his Bush Derangement Syndrome doesn’t appear to let him.

The complete post in response to Moyers drivel can be found here:

http://www.hoystory.com/?p=4524

BTW, you need to get your techweenies to fixing the url for trackbacks -- it's incomplete.

I congratulate Karl Rove and Chris Wallace for exposing Moyers' slander and journalistic fraud. As Wallace pointed out, Moyers didn't even bother to interview Rove about the subject. You will flunk Journalism 101 when you refuse to do that. Face it, Bill: You got punked, and you deserved it.

Just a note: If anyone sees old Billy Boy Moyers before I do, tell him that PrepH will ease the pain of removing Chris Wallace's foot from his rear(be sure and get your nose out of the way-you know, the ones with the "brown rings"). Bill Moyers is nothing more than a leftwing political hack. Oh and one more thing-where did all the FROGS go? (snicker snort)

i'm with max cleland. if rove's lips are moving he must be lying.

While this review tends to support Bill Moyers' editorial, even that this cynical manipulation extended further than Rove-- THANK GOODNESS they "didn't get anything in return... Kuo relates one faith-based promise after another — billions of dollars in funding and tax credits — that goes unfulfilled year after promise after year." Receiving financial remuneration as a quid pro quo in return for votes--isn't that called "a bribe" and "selling your office"? It's bad enough that this extortion setup exists for the benefit of multi-national corporations, the pharma industry, the insurance industry, military contractors, etc., and their lobbyists. To have this extend to FUNDING RELIGION TOO (and a specific one at that) with public money--is forbidden by the US Constitution and is against our whole way of life and politics. Karl Rove may be greedy, diabolical, a liar, a bully, power-crazed, and an authoritarian personality--but he's not stupid.

How can anyone defend FOX (?NEWS?) statements and reporting? about anyone being Bias or Unfair? You have to be joking about Wallace being a fair and unbias with his news reporting!!!!

KKKarl Rove blowing another smoke screen to draw attention away from another of his heinous acts. Impeach the squatters!

Transcript Below the Fold

When President Bush touched on Iraq at his news conference this morning, he may have been revealing more than he knew.

[video] BUSH: The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives.

He was talking about religious extremists in Iraq. But an hour later, Mr. Bush posed with officials from the Southern Baptist Convention.

It is described as the largest, most influential evangelical denomination in a new book by the former number-two man in Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

The book, "Tempting Faith," not out until Monday, but in our third story tonight, a Countdown exclusive we've obtained a copy and it is devastating work.

Author David Kuo's conservative Christian credentials are impeccable; his resume sprinkled with names like Bennett and Ashcroft. Now, as the Foley cover-up has many evangelical Christians wondering whether the G.O.P. is really in sync with their values, "Tempting Faith" provides the answer: No way.

Kuo, citing one example after another of a White House that repeatedly uses evangelical Christians for their votes — while consistently giving them nothing in return;

A White House which routinely speaks of the nation's most famous evangelical leaders behind their backs, with contempt and derision.

Furthermore, Faith-Based Initiatives were not only stiffed on one public promise after another by Mr. Bush — the office itself was eventually forced to answer a higher calling: Electing Republican politicians.

Kuo's bottom line: the Bush White House is playing millions of American Christians for suckers.

According to Kuo, Karl Rove's office referred to evangelical leaders as 'the nuts.'

Kuo says, 'National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.' "

So how does the Bush White House keep 'the nuts' turning out at the polls?

One way, regular conference calls with groups led by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and radio hosts like Michael Reagan.

Kuo says, "Participants were asked to talk to their people about whatever issue was pending. Advice was solicited [but] that advice rarely went much further than the conference call. [T]he true purpose of these calls was to keep prominent social conservatives and their groups or audiences happy."

They do get some things from the Bush White House, like the National Day of Prayer, “another one of the eye-rolling Christian events,” Kuo says.

And “passes to be in the crowd greeting the president when he arrived on Air Force One or tickets for a speech he was giving in their hometown. Little trinkets like cufflinks or pens or pads of paper were passed out like business cards. Christian leaders could give them to their congregations or donors or friends to show just how influential they were. Making politically active Christians personally happy meant having to worry far less about the Christian political agenda.”

When cufflinks weren't enough, the White House played the Jesus card, reminding Christian leaders that, quote, “they knew the president's faith” and begging for patience.

And the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives?

According to Kuo, “White House staff didn't want to have anything to do with the Faith-Based Initiative because they didn't understand it any more than did congressional Republicans . They didn't lie awake at night trying to kill it. They simply didn 't care."

Kuo relates one faith-based promise after another — billions of dollars in funding and tax credits — that goes unfulfilled year after promise after year.

He recounts one specific funding exchange with Mr. Bush:

Bush: "Eight billion in new dollars?"

Kuo: "No sir. Eight billion in existing dollars for which groups will find it technically easier to apply. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years."

Bush: "Eight billion. That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups."

Why bother lying?

Kuo says, "The faith-based initiative had the potential to successfully evangelize more voters than any other."

According to Kuo, the Office spent much of its time on two missions:

One—Trying–and failing–to prove Mr. Bush's claim of regulatory bias against religious charities hiring who they wanted. Quote: "Finding these examples became a huge priority. …[but] religious groups had encountered very few instances of actual problems with their hiring practices." "It really wasn't that bad at all."

Another mission: lobbying the President to make good on his own promises.

How?

Kuo says they tried to prove their political value by turning the once-bipartisan faith-based initiatives into a political operation.

It wasn't just discrimination against non-Christian charities. (One official who rated grant applications told Kuo, " when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero…a lot of us did. ")

The Office was also, literally, a taxpayer-funded part of the Republican campaign machinery.

In 2002, Kuo says the office decided to "hold roundtable events for threatened incumbents with faith and community leaders … using the aura of our White House power to get a diverse group of faith and community leaders to a 'nonpartisan' event discussing how best to help poor people in their area."

White House Political Affairs director Ken Mehlman "loved the idea and gave us our marching orders. There were twenty targets." Including Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and John Shimkus in Illinois.

Mehlman devised a cover-up for the operation. He told Kuo, "It can't come from the campaigns. That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office to request the visit."

Kuo explains, "this approach inoculated us against accusations that we were using religion and religious leaders to promote specific candidates."

Those roundtables were a hit. Republicans won 19 of those 20 races. 76 percent of religious conservatives voted for Chambliss over decorated war hero Max Cleland.

And Bush's 2004 victory in Ohio? That "was at least partially tied to the conferences [they] had launched [there] two years before."

By that time, Kuo had left the White House, concluding that "it was mocking the millions of faithful Christians who had put their trust and hope in the President and his administration. Bush knew his so-called compassion agenda was languishing and had no problem with that."

If you would question Mr. Kuo's credibility, you should know his former boss also quit the White House complaining in his one public interview that politics drove absolutely everything in the Bush administration. There is more, much more revealed in Tempting Faith… how Jack Kemp was tricked into sounding like a religious conservative without even knowing it"

Mr. Moyers, Please interview Mr. Rove before you pronouce that you know anything about the man. Your Left Wing hatred for Republicans is always on your sleeve, and it appears that your fans only want to attack people personally. Let the facts be known first.

Thankyou, Mr. Moyers for another delicious, fact-based outing of the weasl-y Mr. Rove. I always enjoy seeing a well-trained fighter go after an arrogant punk...it's a relief to read this reply after all the 'crap' Rove was spewing on media sources last week.

Mr. Moyers has hit the nail on the head once again. Rove & the Bush administration have used religion to gain & hold on to power. Their actions, Iraq, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Walter Reed, Gitmo, Valerie Plame, Wire Tapping, Jack Abramoff, Armstrong Williams, US Attorneys, Black Site Prisons, Halliburton, Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Gannon, show over & over that they have no regard for Christian principles. Power & Money are their god.

Who says Moyers didn't try to contact Rove? Does anybody here honestly think that Karl Rove would talk to Bill Moyers, even for an instant?

TRUTH, the NATURAL ENEMY of Karl Rove. And right out of the play book of Mr. Rove is this>


"By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell — and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed."
~ Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
German Nazi dictator
from Mein Kampf


If Rove has questioned his faith, good for him. That's better than some political KOOLAID drinkers. I have done the same and yet would find it rude for someone else to try to peg my beliefs based on what other people say, or think they heard.

Wallace got one thing right:
Moyers has dropped the ball in taking on something like this on hearsay, and not at least talking to Rove.

It was a sloppy work of journalism.. but since it is clear Moyers is no longer a journalist but a partisan politlcal writer..all he needs to do is give up the illusion of being anything else and then Wallace will have nothing to critisize.

To politicalguru65:

This segment was clearly and obviously an editorial. Moyers introduced the segment by saying that he was giving his "thoughts" on "politics," and the segment was clearly differentiated from the rest of the hour with the lighting and the camera angle and with Moyers's body posture. He was not "reporting" a "story" or "reporting the sensational." No printed editorial would be required to state the position of the subject ("getting a response from Rove" or "querying him about his current beliefs"). As a supposed expert on journalism you would know this. Why do you have a double standard for visual media?

Chris Wallace proved the true extent of his own gullibility. Please read my CG roll at the end of:
.

In his 8/26/07 on-air reply to Bill Moyers, Chris Wallace unwittingly demonstrates Moyers' very caution against journalists taking Rove's every word as gospel. By doing precisely that, Chris Wallace proves that he deeply inhales the smoke that Karl Rove blows.

Moyers can look forward to a long burn in hell for his godless attitude.

Actually, no real reporter would disagree with Chris Wallace. Moyers was wrong for not at least getting a response from Rove to the past reported "agnostic" stories, as well as querying him about his current beliefs. He then could have reported the story and let the public decide what they believe. That said, I would agree that the temptation to report the sensational ("agnostic fooling Christain Right", etc.) has often led many a reporter from both sides of the polittical spectrum astray.

Chris Wallace started in the news business conducting himself much like his dad......and managed to keep an objective stance, amazingly, at Fox News. He made a valid point when he showed Bill Moyers to have come up somewhat short in reporting on the religion of Mr. Rove. But he jumped right off of whatever "higher ground" he may have found when he got personal and basically told Moyers off. Not done as the professional he mostly shows he can be. My guess is that father Mike Wallace sitting at home watching, shook his head, and picked up the phone to call Moyers and apologize for his kid.

Bill Moyers wrote about Karl Rove's hypocrisy when he compared Rove's public pronouncements about his spirituality and then compared those comments to Rove's private comments to his friends.

Most people, when confronted with distasteful or uncomfortable truths about themselves will lie if possible. How many people tell the truth when asked publicly if they have ever cheated on a partner, but how many of those same people might disclose that same information willingly to a few close associates?

For Chris Wallace to take Rove's assertion that he's a faithful Christian because he goes to church and tithes, despite the significant evidence to the contrary, is Wallace's failing, not Moyers. Bill Moyers was comparing Rove's statement to those associates' comments, and so contrary to Wallace's implication, Moyers did take Rove's own assertions into consideration! Wallace was 100% wrong with his allegations against Bill Moyers, and Moyers was 100% justified in calling Wallace out!

What good would "asking" Rove if he was a Christian do? Does anyone really thing that Rove would take a call, and then a question, from Bill Moyers, and respond by saying "yes, Bill you got it right. I am really not a Christian. You can quote me on that."

The evidence already in the record, which Moyers checked and cited, is far more conclusive than any self-serving statements Rove might make now.

Real reporters should now find Rove's neighborhood Episcopal church and find out if he regularly attended services. Do any White House associates remember Karl roaming the halls with his daily devotional reader? Or did he do this at home privately?

Chris Wallace should chew on this before he propagates the words of a confirmed liar:

"I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak.

Just saw Chris Wallace on FAUX play 'gotcha' by stating that Rove told him he reads prayer devotionals daily and that the largest contribution he ever gave was to his church. He then taunted Mr. Moyers by saying that he should do some real reporting by asking the person next time.

I guess all that religionism keeps Karl Rove from ever lying about things. As an atheist myself, I'd like to think Rove is nowhere near our camp but whatever his beliefs, it is clear he is adept at manipulating the faithful, usually by saying their freedom of religion is being threatened. That's a pretty big lie right there even for Turd Blossom.

Bill Moyers, you are a real journalist and a beacon of light in these Dark Ages of superstition, fear, and utter
baloney.

Bill was not really reporting on Rove's religious beliefs or lack thereof but rather assumed and repeated as true what had been reported by others to make a broader point. This is a partial defense and seems to expose a little bit of spin and misrepresentation by Wallace and Rove.

It seems to me Bill should go a step further and either confirm the truth of what he assumed and expose any deeper dishonesty by Rove ... or simply apologize more sincerely.

Otherwise, this will be spun into another Rathergate, to continue the Texan motif.

The reality is that it is probably poor form to report on someone's personal religious beliefs without allowing that person to speak for himself. I, for one, would like to see Bill invite Mr. Rove to an in-depth interview.

When all the talking is done the Religious Right remains securely comfortable quoting the bible as they are decieved and corruped in both their religion and their Government by liars like Rove, Bush and Cheney, even to the point of ignoring little things like war crimes and treason, the torture of human beings, two lost wars, one drowned city and the steep downfall of their own Nation from within.

In what cold part of hell did Dante place these bleating fools?

The fact that Rove is attacking Moyers is very illuminating. Indeed it goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the republican base. It doesn't matter how many innocents are killed in Iraq, if we are church goers and profess to believe in God. Rove can, even now as he is doing, profess to be a Christian, but his support for policies contradictory to the teachings of Christ prove his version of Christianity to be hollow. Clearly Moyers is on to something and has been making trouble for the Whitehouse. His real journalism is what we need more of to shed light on the corruption and tyranny of this administration. Moyers is becoming a grenade that Rove wants to jump on. If he makes this about him and his faith, and can discredit Moyers as a leftist hack and chill other journalists who are willing to tell the truth about what is happening in this country. I have great respect for Mr. Moyers and have found his comments at the end of Journal to be the most straightforward assesments of current events. Although I agree completely with his assesment of Rove, I would just like to suggest that he keep his eye on the real problem: this administration. That Rove wants to make this about himself is an indication that Moyers' real journalism is having an adverse effect on this whitehouse. Getting
Chris Wallace involved is turning up the heat, it's the bait. I know Bill's been through the fire before and can handle this, I only suggest he understand what is happening here and not be fooled. Keep up the real journalism Bill, you're a great American.

According to the gospel of Chris Wallace...whatever Rove says is the gospel, and you don't need other sources.

Mr. Moyers, If what Mr. Wallace just mentioned in his response to you at the end of FNS episode is in fact the case regarding Mr. Rove, then you have been served by a very inconvenient truth indeed.
Perhaps this is another example of the importance of the intent of the reporter overcoming the decision to report factual information being the Achilles' heel of activist journalism.
Or perhaps it is just another example of the reporter becoming the story in an effort to maintain their own relevance with respect to a specific audience and/or market share.
Regardless of the factual basis, the perception of un-professionalism brought about by the story being pulled off topic calls into question the viability of activist journalism thanks to you and others like you.
The end of activist journalism as such would not in and of itself be bad, it would merely require the practitioners to return to the more honest tradition of the rabble-rousing pamphleteering propagandists from which it originated.

Wait, Moyers' sources are other editorials, and the Huffington Post?

No wonder Mr. Byrnes feints to the left. Well, so long gentlemen.

Moyers responds that Rove's "agnosticism, or questioning of faith, has indeed been in the news..."

This is double sleight of hand. First, agnosticism isn't the same as questioning one's faith. Agnostics believe it's impossible to know if there is a God; such renowned Christians as Mother Teresa question their faith.

Second, what's "in the news" isn't always fact or truth. Third-hand retellings of private conversations about faith are particularly susceptible to misunderstanding. Moyers used agnosticism as a central fact in his column, and now won't let Rove say otherwise. Moyers knows better than this.

I appreciated Bill's comments about Karl Rove's departure, but I wish he had gone one step farther than he did. I'm no fan of Rove, but I also think that the criticisms Bill levels at Rove are probably equally applicable to many highly-placed political "handlers" of presidential candidates (and, now presidents) of both parties. Was Dickie Morris (brought in to help President Clinton revive his presidency via "triangulation) any different? This is not to cast any credit on Rove, but I do think it's time to question this entire profession of spinmeisters who do little more than tell politicians how to do whatever it takes to win--or maintain--power, irrespective of any issues of principle. As long as our candidates and office holders turn over policymaking to people like this, our entire political system will remain compromised, ands our politicians will rightly be viewed as craven and more interested in power than policy.

"Left or Right, I've never seen a more intolerant person than Bill Moyers on Public Television."

Intolerant about what, exactly? Power for its own sake? Hypocracy? Lies? Slander? Neo-fascist state-industry integration? Dismantling The Constitution of The United States of America? Torture? Media-supported state propoganda?

Or is it maybe the classics? Cruelty? Ignorance? Greed? Avarice?

The people Mr. Moyers takes to task spit on the "common people." I'd like to see a lot more of that kind of "intolerance."

"Intolerance" is an UNFOUNDED hatred of someone or something. I'm sure even Mr. Rove can find something in The Bible on that.

I can't decide whose opinions are more myopic and childish, Moyers' ot samosamo's.

At least samosamo's hateful drivel is not produced at taxpayer expense.

You can bet the next time Congress goes Rep., the Moyers rant will be shown before any discussions of continued funding for PBS. When it finally is de-funded, Moyers will only be remembered as the man who killed PBS.

Left or Right, I've never seen a more intolerant person than Bill Moyers on Public Television.

This entirely nonresponsive "Response" avoids the issue presented, attacking Deal Hudson instead.

Then some commenters pronounce Rove a nonChristian, anti-Christian, hell-bound Pharisee. That's not the issue either, but it's one way to make Moyers' unsubstantiated statement more truthy. Sort of like:

"Hey Joe, my friend heard rumors that you're a nonbelieving, nonChristian agnostic."

"Your friend is mistaken. Actually I'm a believing Christian, although not the best."

"Well don't try to tell me you're a Christian. I know you're not, and I'm not afraid to say so, and neither is my courageous friend who heard it somewhere and therefore was entirely correct to published it in his column!!"

Thanks Bill. I was thinking about sending some money to PBS, and was wondering if anyone had yet set up a fund to help dislodge Michael Getler's head from Karl Rove's ass. Please let us know where to send the money (and how much does a can of WD-40 cost, anyway?)


This is a comment that I posted on Dean Hudson’s website, but that I wanted to share with this forum as well.

Having read both your(Dean Hudson), and Moyer's, side of this issue, I am not troubled by Moyer's words, but I am surprised by your personal indignation at his statement. I understand the idea of standing up for a friend and a colleague, but to demand that anyone recant their views, because you believe differently, but can provide only different sources, no better ones, seems to undermine the idea of free speech, and the idea of information exchange in general. A difference in opinion is in fact what I look to the media for.

Where there is a difference of opinion, or of interpretation, I would hope to find debate and conversation, but instead you seem to have reverted to a more simple viewpoint of, I'm right and you are wrong. This is much too simple a way to look at this. There is a very legitimate question in Moyer's comment. How does the religious community feel about a man who, might have just been pretending?

While I do not personally feel one way of the other about this issue, I do feel that this attitude is one the permeates much of our current political and social world and, I fear, is leading us to much darker days, where the freedom to think contrary is not only frowned upon, but punished.

What I read in your comments is desire for revenge, not physical, but a desire to slander Moyer’s because he has formed a different opinion than your own. I think that all leaders, and all people in general, have a responsibility to question, but also to listen to varying viewpoints. All ideas that lay unchallenged grow stagnant. So I guess I am hoping to encourage a conversation about what it could mean if Rove was using his religiosity as a tool. After all stranger things have happened.

I love the claim that a news organization, The San Antonio Express, knows Karl Rove. I didn't realize that a newspaper could actually know someone. Oh, and apparently the Huffington Post is a quotable, credible source?

Thank you, Mr. Moyers, for the truth you bring to broadcasting, whether it is your journal or your many interviews (including my favorite, with Joseph Campbell!) You are a brilliant journalist with courage, which is lacking in the mainstream media.

By their fruits they shall be known! Karl isn't even close to becoming even a Christian let alone someone who believes the words of Jesus. Self reflection for most will resolve that issue but for Karl denial is the word of the day.

Mr. Moyers,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Keep up the good work. We need you now more then ever.

Bill Moyers, you are a true hero. You speak truth to power, albeit in a soft, well-spoken voice.

Karl Rove is no Christian when he does the work of Satan (no matter if he occasionally sits in the pew of an Episcopalian church.)

Rove helped elect a "true believer" though, a "born again" Bush, who thought that God "wanted" him to run for President.

Talk about delusions of grandeur! The "God" that "talked" to Bush is living in Hell now -- or in Iraq.

Rove can go off and give Jeff Gannon some more gay sex, like
he did hundreds of times in the whitehouse. KR had to leave W's side because his homo ways were about to be revealed.

I heard this some time ago & find it fitting here.

"Just because you are sitting in a garage, that doesn't make you a car."

As has been so clearly stated here, one's beliefs only count when implemented in deed & Rove & his ilk have shown, without a doubt that they are about as far from being Christians as they can be.

CD
NYC

Such an uproar and flame war over two sentences in a much longer statement! Can I assume folks like BK have no complaints about everything else that was said?

Well seems like most have comments hit the nail on the head. Mr. Rove is a modern day Pharisee.

I misspelled my name. Please correct is posted. Thanks.

Thank you for printing your letter to Chris Wallace. The details that it includes, helps to clarify the situation. We need the whole story out in the open.

Still doing a great job exposing what is going on underneath the radar of America's media magnates. I have always been enlightened by your comments and especially the ones that seem to follow Samuel Clemens' disdain of organized religions assault on separation between church and state. Like you I was born in a Baptist family, but in the impoverished rural south... over the years I came to see the political aspect of the "faith-based" electorate of the southern voting block made up of "true believers" whose ideological attacks on the rest of us in our theological disagreement.

I wish Molly Ivens was still among us to catalog the hypocrisy of the so-called Christian Right and their justification for everything they espouse:

"We got Jesus.. y'all don't." Which seems to emulate my favorite 70's bumper sticker: "Support metal health or I'll kill you"

Best of luck... keep doing what you do Bill.. we "don'ts" need you.

Still doing a great job exposing what is going on underneath the radar of America's media magnates. I have always been enlightened by your comments and especially the ones that seem to follow Samuel Clemens' disdain of organized religions assault on separation between church and state. Like you I was born in a Baptist family, but in the impoverished rural south... over the years I came to see the political aspect of the "faith-based" electorate of the southern voting block made up of "true believers" whose ideological attacks on the rest of us in our theological disagreement.

I wish Molly Ivens was still among us to catalog the hypocrisy of the so-called Christian Right and their justification for everything they espouse:

"We got Jesus.. y'all 'sum bitches don't." Which seems to emulate my favorite 70's bumper sticker: "Support metal health or I'll kill you"

Best of luck... keep doing what you do Bill.

..yes. Save us from those who would have "a powerful voice" as well as a substantive message.

Rod,

No, I really don't have the energy to explain why calling someone an agnostic when that person is not an agnostic is wrong. Even though it's really not that complicated. Only Moyers could write four paragraphs in an effort to sidestep the issue and avoid his responsibility to apologize.

And, no it's definitely NOT "Mister" Moyers to me, especially when speaking to such an axe-grinding hack.

Bill,
I am a fan of your incredible body of work. But I beg of you, please start making your points in a less erudite manner!!
I grow impatient watching you at times because you are so doggone scholarly.
Your Rove piece is a standout because it gets to the point quickly and goes for the jugular. You are a powerful voice when you speak without all the embellishment.

Keep it simple, Brother.

Ah, BK at it again - am I asking too much for you explain what's evidently so "clear" to you - and doesn't seem so to me based on the article quoted as evidence in this response?

And, it's MISTER Moyers I think, right?

Moyers, you can't even muster the common decency to apologize, when clearly you have once again made a mistake. Do we need to get the PBS Ombudsman after you again? You are SUCH a self-righteous ****. I pity all the like-minded pinheads who gather here for their chance to wash your feet.

Dear Mr. Moyers,
I enjoy your writing even more than I enjoy your PBS Journal.
Keep Hammerin'
Bruce

It's one thing to disagree politically with the Christian right and another thing to say you have intimate knowledge that he doesn't practice any specific religion.

"Rove has corrected your error and told you he's sitting in a pew in an Episcopal Church every Sunday.

Be a man and apologize for your error."

So he 'sits in a pew' - that makes him a Christian?
It's apparent you do not understand what one believes versus what one shows the public can two very different things, as any politician knows.
Try reading the Bible: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." Matthew 6:5-6

After reading some of the vitriol responses toward Mr Moyer in this and other blogs I am continually amazed at how brainwashed and clueless those on the right are. Bill you are a breath of fresh air.

After reading some of the vitriol responses toward Mr Moyer in this and other blogs I am continually amazed at how brainwashed and clueless those on the right are. Bill you are a breath of fresh air amongst the stench of the right wing fascists.

So Mr. Rove's proof of his standing as a Christian is that he goes to church on Sunday?

Being in church no more makes Rove a Christian than being in a parking lot makes him a car.

Mr. McCarthy:
Be a man, think for yourself. It is obvious what you want to believe but check the facts. Your man lied. It is that simple. Rove is an agnostic. This is old news. It has been noted in blogs and more traditional media for 3 or 4 years now. He's just real good at blowing sunshine up the religious right's collective posterior which accounts for your naivety.

Mr. Moyers;

It's one thing to disagree politically with the Christian right and another thing to say you have intimate knowledge that he doesn't practice any specific religion.

Rove has corrected your error and told you he's sitting in a pew in an Episcopal Church every Sunday.

Be a man and apologize for your error.

Dear Mr. Moyers:

Long ago on NOW, you maintained, through an interview with some very qualified Christian scholar, that one may know a Christian by their actions (fruits). This is a much easier way to explain Karl Rove. Even if occasionally self identified as a Christian, Rove's support for so many immoral implemented policies (eg., torture) immoral slanderous attacks on people, and his unwavering support for an illegal war, demonstrate his inclination toward something far more akin to anti-christianity. You and Rove can battle about what is known in Texas, what is whispered at DC parties and what Rove would look like if reviewed by a Spanish inquisition; I suggest torture, illegal war, depleted uranium, civilian bombing, domestic spying without judicial review, arming enemy Sunni insurgents, outing an intelligence agent and more importantly outing the CIA group trying to protect us from weapons of mass destruction is quite enough to give one pause as to whether Rove patterns his words and actions upon Christ.

Mr. Moyers,
I gain from your courage as well as from your views and research. Thank you.

Now let me see if I understand this, Mr. Getler is complaining to you about unbalanced reporting because of your comments about Rove's 'headin for the hills' move and some wheeler 'dealer' hudson demands apologies from you to kkkrove because he is hurt. My how spastic can these neocons get. Here is the, if not the main reason, a very major reason there is NO objective reporting in the msm as it can be regarded as a total monopoly controlled by the neocons, especially the sorry excuse for a human rupert murdoch(sp).
I mean these criminals are still playing the, 'they are always right and everyone else is wrong and needs to listen their commands', card as this is the way it is going to be from now on. If ever something cries out for justice and adjustment, the regulation of the media is it.
Curse Reagan and the rest after him for subverting one of the most important checks on government not being called out for its misguided road to dictatorship.

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ