Call it a meeting of the Bush-bashing minds. Longtime PBS host Bill Moyers invited on MSNBC host Keith Olbermann for Friday’s edition of Bill Moyers Journal. The strangest moment came as Moyers suggested that in a polarized country, it might be distasteful for journalists to favor one side. Moyers must be playing devil’s advocate, because he’s been every bit as vituperative against Bush as Olbermann.
The worries about polarization and contributing to "a nation of screechers" came up twice.
BILL MOYERS: It seems to me that this country has become two choirs, each side listening to, only to its own preachers. If -- should journalists take sides when everybody else is polarized?
KEITH OLBERMANN: The definition now of being on one side is to have not-- flag wavingly supported the president in anything he wanted, not handed him carte blanche after carte blanche after carte blanche.
BILL MOYERS: Not saying mission accompli--
KEITH OLBERMANN: Right.
BILL MOYERS: – Mission accomplished?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Exactly. It-- it is-- I said that-- I'm on the air with Chris Matthews on that day with miss-- mission accomplished on May 1st in 2003. And I-- and he's talking about this as George Bush's moment in history and this. And I said, "Don't you think that him wearing a flight suit's going to be a little bit of a problem during the election cam-- "No. This is American history at its finest." I thought, "Gee, I'm the guy's wearing a flight suit." You talk about the emperor's new clothes. Here it is. He-- his new clothes are a flight suit when there was a controversy over whether or not he-- he fulfilled his Air National Guard service. You-- you just-- to-- to say that suddenly became subjective, just to recognize that. It was as if you were saying, "I'm only going to report," back to the sports analogies. I'm only going to report the Dodgers scores when they win.
Later, Moyers decided to read viewer mail to Olbermann, and the former sports anchor couldn’t help but joke about his biases:
BILL MOYERS: Quote, "I have long had mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. While it's nice to have a cable anchor how doesn't obsequiously parrot Republican National Committee talking points, I struggle with the fear that angry histrionics on both sides create more of the ugly polarization that paralyzes our institutions and prevents Americans finding common ground. How does Mr. Olbermann differentiate his ad hominem attacks from those we see on the other side?" What do you say to Jesse?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Well, they're better written. The first-- no, I hate to-- I-- it's the most vulnerable point because it bothers me, too. It do-- it's the one criticism that I think is absolutely fair. We're doing the same thing. It is-- it becomes a nation of screechers. It's never a good thing. But emergency rules do apply. I would like nothing better than to go back and do maybe a sportscast every night. But I think the stuff that I'm talking about is so obvious and will be viewed in such terms of certainty by history that this era will be looked at the way we look now at the-- at the presidents and the-- the leaders of this country who rolled back Reconstruction. I think it's that obvious. And I think only under those circumstances would I go this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it.
At least at that moment Olbermann was admitting he was vociferously anti-Bush. Minutes earlier, the two suggested that conservatives might be mistaken to think Keith had a liberal tilt:
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I noticed when you a sportscaster you never took sides between the teams on the field. But a lot of people think you've taken sides now. They think you've taken sides with the progressive or liberal story.
KEITH OLBERMANN: They didn't say that a lot during the Lewinsky thing. I always find that kind of ironic as I've seen some of the criticism from the right. But, what I've done on the air in the last 4 1/2 years, and particularly in the last year and a half since the special comments began, is really journalism. It's saying here's what you're being told. Here's the identifiable objective fact to the situation. This statement from the government may be a lie. And what we all did in this country, those who had voted for this president and those who did not, was to say we're in dire trouble. We've been attacked. Let's rally around him, give him all the support we can, and we will suspend our disbelief. The moment that it began to be obvious that we were being manipulated, used-- that was when my suspicions began to take voice.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Hater
December 18, 2007 - 00:45 ET by Jerry MackThis is just another confirmation that Olbermann hates George Bush. He has found fault with everything that the President has said and done. Even before Bush was president.
Moyers/Olby
December 18, 2007 - 00:50 ET by d1carterTwo of my favorite people....heh
Two of my favorite people
December 18, 2007 - 19:43 ET by MitchumsteinTwo of my favorite people too...to poop on!
With just one more progressive "journalist"...
December 18, 2007 - 00:58 ET by ThalpyWith just one more progressive "journalist" it would have been a cluster something or other.
Second comment
December 18, 2007 - 00:58 ET by Jerry MackI have never watched Bill Moyers program. From what I have read and heard about him I have not missed anything except left wing propaganda.
Nice to see a moron and a
December 18, 2007 - 00:59 ET by Captain RepusNice to see a moron and a pseudo-intellectual sit around and chew the fat. I presume all three program listeners were suitably entertained.
Now pretend I have a big boat, and a massive flood was coming, and I am responsible for taking two of every species on-board, and these two were the only humans available at the time. Looks to me like I would have had spare room on the boat for a couple of kegs of beer.
Good choice.
December 18, 2007 - 01:15 ET by BlondeI like the way you think.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
This is sweet...
December 18, 2007 - 01:04 ET by Scout FinchOlbermann: But emergency rules do apply.
In other words.......The rules change when I want to say something bombastic and over-the-top.
Tim Graham Translation
December 18, 2007 - 01:44 ET by Lame CherryI did not watch the Moyers interview after being alerted by Newsbusters as I had PBS on, Moyers was coming on and I was so repulsed by the thought of DUI Moyers and Foul Mouth Olberman acting intellectual I surfed off before I literally puked.
In noting Mr. Graham's fine blog on this though, one should remember the Rush Limbaugh analogy of liberals.
Bill Moyers in noting America is polarized (not stating it is his fault, his cartel bosses fault and their political wing of the DNC who is at fault in this envy politics to gain power), DOES NOT BELIEVE HE IS TAKING SIDES.
See Moyers looks at Olberman and says, "Keeter you are taking sides even if I agree with them.........but you are like those stupid, loathesome, homophobic, Christian Conservatives wanting to force women to have babies".
Moyers then looks at himself and says, "I am god. I am a journalist. I am perfect. I have complete judgment and my bigotry, hatred, Christ phobia, America bashing, racist, drunken driving rants are pure as I am pure. I have judged this situation and am absolutely correct without any prejudice. George Bush is satan because I say so, but I, Bill Moyers, am perfect and incapable of taking sides for I am a journalist".
This I believe Mr. Graham is the reason no one has written about yet, so it is another Newsbuster's exclusive. Dan Rather does not believe he is a liberal bigot, because he like Moyers "is above the fray". This allows them to promote liberal agendas not because they are "liberal", but as journalists who know all........have judged this action to be correct for all those moronic redlands people too skewed by Nascar, Hee Haw and that Church thing repressing them with morals.
Now Mr. Limbaugh has not gone this far, but I would build on his stating Teddy Kennedy was immoral, Bill Clinton was amoral and I would add Bill Moyers and his type are bimoral.........meaning their immoral actions like driving drunk and ranting at police have excuses which cancel out their amoral soulless judgments of all others "not like them".
In research, one finds these bimorals always at centers of self appointed power structures using all their ability to justify their ends.
Stalin butchering what is 60 million people justifies his actions for the moral cause of communism but in amorality feels nothing for doing what he has done.
Dan Rather, Abu Gharib, thousands dead from his set up propaganda to destroy Bush........no remorse.
Bill Moyers, his entire wacko Dr. Strangeview rants, justifies the Kennedy immorality, but George Bush is amoral for protecting America. Same is true in his justifying Clinton immorality which brought about Bush 43's actions.......but it is Bush who is again amoral.
Since no one has ever pegged these types psychologically, the bimoral definition is their label. In times past one just called the Caligula types beasts, but modern intelligent people need to understand what is really making these types tick.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
La Cheri'
December 18, 2007 - 10:50 ET by JayTeeThanks for the "insights" into the Liberal rationality, it's always a puzzel to figure out "What were they thinkin ?" when they come together for a love fest like this.
Moyers and Obermanic, what a Tag Team.
I think these dudes and others like them, spend too much time in New York, too much time behind their desks, not enough time in the Real America.
I have some Liberal Friends, and I travel a LOT.....and on Occaision I have brought along Liberals on a "drive thru" from Illinois thru Missouri/Oklahoma/Texas, and they always end up being less Liberal before/after the Trip is over.
The Exposure to the real world would do them Good...as their audience of listeners is dwindling fast, and I would guess most their listeners are Clones.
Brilliant.
December 18, 2007 - 11:24 ET by mattmBrilliant.
The tyrant excuse
December 18, 2007 - 02:39 ET by KC MulvilleOlbermann gives old excuses:
That's the ultimate liberal excuse. "I trample others because I'm right and they're wrong. We are justified in what we do because we're correct." That's the tyrant's excuse. That's the dictator's excuse.
Olbermann says these things, and Moyers agrees, but neither has any embrassment or self-reflective humility at themselves. They genuinely think they have the right to break rules and place themselves above discussion because they're convinced they know more than the rest of us. Thank God these are only media prima donnas. If they were mayors or governors or presidents, ninety percent of America would storm the battlements. As it is, they're merely insufferable fools.
That's for sure, KC. The
December 18, 2007 - 08:14 ET by motherbeltThat's for sure, KC. The fact that Moyers would even ask "should journalists take sides?" is telling.
Moyers says: How does Mr. Olbermann differentiate his ad hominem attacks from those we see on the other side?"
And Olbermann's answer is that they started it, and we have to respond; he hates it, but "emergency rules apply." That's right, KO. Conservatives just hate people, but you only respond in an emergency.
You have to remember that to a liberal, saying things like "Hillary Clinton is not a native New Yorker" or "Max Cleland voted against the Homeland Security Bill" is an ad hominen attack. However, for a liberal to say that President Bush is worse that Hitler, or to say that "Republicans like this war" as Her Speakerness Nancy Pelosi recently did, well that's just stating facts.
And as usual, Olbermann is so full of himself that it's a wonder his ego hasn't actually taken physical form and started oozing out his ears.
Poor Keith, he'd love to just do sports again, but his country needs him. Go back to sports, Keith. It'll be tough, but both of your viewers will survive.
motherbelt...I can assure
December 18, 2007 - 11:27 ET by Jermotherbelt...I can assure you if the statements made about Hillary Clinton and Max Cleland were as innocuous as your examples, you wouldn't hear a single disagreeable peep from even the most rabid liberals.
I don't begrudge a little exaggeration to make a point, but you're drifting into the realm of complete absurdity with that comparison.
Jer
Not really
December 18, 2007 - 12:03 ET by KC MulvilleIt is now Common Media Knowledge that the arguments against Max Cleland were purely underhanded and smeared a great American, a soldier! who gave his limbs in performance of his duty. But the argument against Cleland was not a smear. He did vote against the anti-terrorist measures. Republicans had a right to say that Cleland's votes would unfairly limit our ability to fight terror.
But let's put this in the perspective that both MB and I are talking about. Let's examine one of the non-innocuous statements that you might be thinking of.
It is intellectually impossible to object to the Cleland ads, yet not object to Olbermann's constant smears. Who gave Olbermann the exclusive right to declare "emergency rules?" It is the ultimate definition of a double-standard: he wants the right to do it himself, yet he refuses to accept that others can invoke the same right.
Let's face it, Olbermann's show is a continuing smear. (And have you noticed with the election coming up, that Olbermann is now extending his smear tactics to the GOP candidates more specifically?)
Jer & MB & KC & The Sunshi... nevermind :p
December 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by MrShyJer, okay, granted motherbelt's examples were perhaps the furthest side of relative harmlessness, but she's still making an excellent point. And believe me, I say this with first hand experience from being at a party this past weekend (not sure if you saw my post about it that I wrote the other day...)
To say things like -- and YES, they are said all around me here in NYC -- Bush is not only equal to, but worse than, Hitler, and that if he were to be assassinated it would be a good thing for humanity and they'd be happy, etc. (both those examples were pronounced loud and proud by a schmuck at that party, and everyone nodded in zombie-like agreement... everyone except one person, that is) are perfectly fine and acceptable by an overwhelming majority of people where I live. If they're not fully acceptable, most of the remaining minority might take a little issue with it. Then there's the "fringe", like me, who are actually (get this) appalled and offended by these outrageous remarks. Yeah, I'm the fringe Jer.
This dangerously radical, absolutism by the left is very real and scary. This schmuck hated Bush even before Iraq (I got him to admit that, my one small victory in the argument, as it was me against the entire party) so he's just set in stone with "R=evil, D=do-gooders".
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
Mr Shy: A quick response,
December 18, 2007 - 12:51 ET by JerMr Shy: A quick response, and maybe we can revisit the issue in more detail later.
Yes, I did read your post about the crude anti-Bush jerks at the party. It's offensive, outrageous, disgusting, and I find it extremely disturbing. However, it was uttered by boorish idiots at a party! I listened to the same type of trash talk--and worse--not just from the hordes of rabid Clinton haters around Atlanta, but by talk radio hosts, including one locally [but whose show was streamed to our armed forces] who lamented that military firing squads weren't availble to execute him, and who was thrilled with a caller's suggestion that they commandeer a C-130, fly over the White House and put an incendiary shell up that boy [Clinton's] ass. It was a non-stop smear for eight years that makes BDS look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.
So, yes I deplore the anti-Bush diatribes...I don't know how many times I have to repeat that sentiment here at NB. I admire and respect the Bush family. Yet all I see here is that the Clintons are trash, corrupt, Satanic, communists, traitors, you name it. [And if you've read my posts, you will note that I do not support Hillary and will probably vote Republican if she is the nominee.]
Keith Olbermann is partisan...too partisan for my tastes. But he is one individual. You have several on the right that are just as partisan as he is. So, don't despair too much about KO.
Jer
Jer, fair enough. Yeah, I
December 18, 2007 - 13:16 ET by MrShyJer, fair enough. Yeah, I was hardly into politics in the '90's, so I can't go on first-hand experience during BJ-C's years. Of course, again, this is NYC, so it would indeed be lopsided if I WAS able to compare (and my comparison were to be unbiased, which I would like to think it would be...)
And while, yes, these were boorish idiots at a party, they're still "people" at a party, and I am friends with a lot of them, even. One girl I even like, and we continued the conversation later. Turns out, much like my own mom, she doesn't really know the ins-outs of the politcal machine or the intricacies of foreign policy much at all, and just repeats all the simple talking points she adopts from her friends.
So yes, there are strong-willed partisan beliefs on both sides. As for KO, I'd like to know who he's NOT too partisan for -- but again, I got my answer to that one at the party. I've also seen a lot of comments under clips from his show on YouTube, for instance, and he's a cult hero of sorts, "fighting the good fight" according to his true-believers... mostly "truther" types who really see absolute corruption and conspiracies with Republicans/neocons only. Once a Dem's in the office, believe me, they'll go back to harping on other things and all will be okay in the world again.
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
Mr Shy...I've probably read
December 18, 2007 - 13:38 ET by JerMr Shy...I've probably read 90% of your posts. You are a passionate advocate for your conservative philosophy, possess a great sense of humor, but you also seem willing to maintain an open mind, listen to opposing views, and engage in a fair fight. That's as much as a Democrat should reasonably expect at NB, so I'm sure our paths will cross again.
Jer
Does anyone have nearly as
December 18, 2007 - 03:12 ET by fitzfongDoes anyone have nearly as high an opinion of either of these windbags as they have of themselves?
This may be an obvious question but...
December 18, 2007 - 03:22 ET by lumpyis there a conservative anchor on the tax-funded PBS to balance the liberal Bill Moyers?
If not, why aren't the moderate and conservative tax-payers up in arms about this and contacting their representatives in congress?
And also contacting PBS during their incessant fund drives and demanding political balance before donating?
PBS is dependent on the goodwill of tax-paying citizens and donations from citizen-viewers. And even their corporate sponsors must maintain the support of consumers.
It seems to me that if people banded together and put up enough of a stink--in other words, if they became activists--the situation would change.
I think that's the main problem with most issues. Those on the right do not protest and boycott as loudly and frequently as the left. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
I think that's the problem with most of these websites. People whine and gripe but do they DO anything? It's just a big circle jerk. You have to agitate and write and call your congresspeople and boycott. We need to take some lessons from the left on how to get things done and make our voices heard.
No, but that should not be the point.
December 18, 2007 - 03:39 ET by sarcasmoEven if there were a conservative anchor, there'd not be a libertarian one. I pay plenty of taxes, as do libertarians like me. The problem with PBS isn't their lack of balance -- anything run by humans will be imperfect -- it's the presence of our tax money. Defunding them entirely will solve your "no conservative anchors!!" problem handily, without presenting libertarians like me with the usual "no voice whatsoever -- and shut up about it!!" problem we always seem to be stuck-with by a biased media.
Still want to be able to see PBS locally? Give 'em YOUR $$$ during their beg-o-thons. But (with apologies to the great band Stealers Wheel) just because the clowns to the left of me get to use my taxes to spread their blinkered political views doesn't mean the jokers to the right should somehow have the right to do the exact same thing!! I'm voting for "clowns & jokers need to leave me the hell alone for a change" this time.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Yeah, PBS should be scrapped
December 18, 2007 - 04:14 ET by fitzfongYeah, PBS should be scrapped entirely in my opinion. They only put decent programming on during their "beg-o-thons" (I like that, mind if I use it?). PBS only exists as a taxpayer drain because its programming wouldn't survive the marketplace on commercial television. I hate that we have to subsidize this crap.
Colon Blow
December 18, 2007 - 04:33 ET by stratmanSheesh!
I smell something and The Rock didn't cook it up.
Now I have to take an Olbermann in the Moyers.
Where's one of those french Biden's when you need one?
Reading NewsBusters is more cathartic than Colon Blow.
(N.B.: The Rock attended the Republican National Convention in 2004)
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
delete
December 18, 2007 - 07:52 ET by motherbeltdelete
I just wish
December 18, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Tidy Bowl ManI just wish that reporters and journalists would do what they are supposed to. Give us an unvarnished look at what is happening and let us decide. WITHOUT PERSONAL BIAS.
We, the unwashed masses are
December 18, 2007 - 09:23 ET by dscottWe, the unwashed masses are too stupid and ignorant to make such decisions. We need the journalists to form our opinions, otherwise there will be confusion. I mean, without them telling us what to think how will we be able to be an informed voter? Besides, how else are we going to be convinced to give up our standard of living if we have doubts about AGW? How can we sacrifice, if we don't believe due to dissenting ideas? After all, those who hold differing opinions are ignorant of the assertions, what they assert is truth, they have the facts but we can't see them and we are too stupid to engage in such complex reasoning. We must listen, we must believe, we must do as we are told... <sarcasm>
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The libs only complain
December 18, 2007 - 09:13 ET by dscottThe libs only complain about polarization when the conservatives begin to match their (lib) volume and distain, you see libs can dish it out but they can't take it. This reflected in the loss of ratings and circulation numbers of the MSM. When it comes time to take a dose of their own medicine, it's suddenly bad for America. The last quote of Olbermann pretty much says it all about his partisanship and his contribution to the rising lack of comity.
Get use to it Moyers and Oblermann, as long as you insist on being vocal about your politics, so will we. When you start toning down your rhetoric, so will we, not one second before. Never again will the likes of you be able to shoot your mouths off without a counter response. We are done sitting by silently while you bad mouth conservatives, the country, the POTUS, etc. when things don't go your way.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
pompous reporters
December 18, 2007 - 09:43 ET by ronit's great to have brilliant, insightful, and interesting reporters but it's not these 2. moyers is beyond pompous and olby is so full of hate it's pathetic. i find it quite funny that olby's "worst person" award always goes to a conservative he doesn't like but never an oppressive dictator.
I echo what has already been
December 18, 2007 - 09:32 ET by KillgraveI echo what has already been said here. If these two partisan demagogues want to stroke their beards and pretend to be objective journalists (not to mention intellectuals), then they should do it on their own dime, not the public's.
It is only fair. But liberals don't believe in playing fair. It is a child-like mentality.
Wow. What can you say
December 18, 2007 - 09:48 ET by Free ThinkerWow. What can you say beyond the obvious about this historic meeting of the vainglorious shallow minds. This is a cartoon of everything newsbusters seeks to point out about the leftist media of this country.
He should have just given
December 18, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Dave DHe should have just given the good excuse. IE "I can be as biased as I want since I'm not one."
I was working on some craft
December 18, 2007 - 10:50 ET by BruzillaI was working on some craft projects and watching Antiques Roadshow on PBS, and was too lazy to change the channel when Moyers and KO came on, so I got to sit through most of it. I thought the best part of it was the way they tried to play up KO's ratings. Moyers was saying how KO has the highest rated show on MSNBC (yeah... there's something to be proud of), how his viewership continues to rise (even though I think most of his viewers are bloggers on here), and other out-of-context measures of KOs growing dominance. It would have been the longest string of left-handed compliments in history if they were coming from anyone else.
I also liked hearing KO talking about his success, about how he "lost it" one night and (supposedly) NBC came to him and asked him if he could "lose it" again. He saw it as the NBC leadership valued his deepest held opinions, while the reality was that NBC wanted a bombthrower who would stir some controversy and hopefully get someone to watch MSNBC. I was hoping Moyers would say "you know... if watching a monkey throw poo at the camera would get people to watch, MSNBC would have a poo-throwing monkey on during your timeslot instead of you", but he never brought the matter up.
That's a moronic question
December 18, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Senior ChiefThat's a moronic question for a suppose to be "journalist" to ask, Bill. And Billy is asking Olberdot, duh. Just give us the news and not your opinion. Let us decide who's right and who's wrong. But then again, Moyer and Olberdot have no idea what journalists does...So, that was a fair question. Moron talking to a fellow moron.
Olberman and Moyers
December 19, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Redrowan2000Shouldn't they have disclaimers when guys like this are on the air or in our newspapers that "These are the opinions of the writer and or talking head and any resemblance to objective journalism is purely coincidental."
Red