Moyers and Maher Avoid Facts as They Attack President Bush on ‘Real Time’

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

If you’re a leftwing journalist with a new television special about to air on PBS accusing the Bush administration of using the media to sell the Iraq war in 2003, is there any place better to promote the event than HBO’s “Real Time?”

Bill Moyers must have felt this was the perfect venue to market his upcoming “Buying the War” program, as he discussed its contents and his views of the incursion and the media with Bill Maher on Friday (video available here).

As so often happens when Maher has such an outspoken critic of the Administration as his guest, the host set up the discussion in a manner seemingly designed to create an environment condusive to bashing the president:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

After Hurricane Katrina, there was a lot of talk about how the media found its footing again. The media’s back. Well, after this week, would you agree with me: No, they’re not? They’re worse than ever?

Amazing, wouldn’t you agree? After all, the media’s coverage of Katrina was a national disgrace. Let me elaborate how for you, Bill:

  • They actually blamed a natural disaster on a president
  • They totally ignored the role of local and state authorities – both coincidentally happening to be Democrat Administrations – in such emergencies
  • They totally ignored the corruption and malfeasance of Louisiana elected officials for decades as it pertained to financial resources supposedly allocated for levee repair
  • They totally ignored the role that Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and her father may have played in such malfeasance.

Yet, that wasn’t the only disgraceful moment in this interview, for Maher later posed:

Do you agree that it was correct for example to, for the “Nightly News” on at least a couple of the nights that I watched, that was the, the Virginia Tech story was the only story that they aired. Nothing else apparently happened in the whole world that night.

First off, I’m not sure what Maher was watching, for according to closed caption transcripts of last week’s “Nightly News” on NBC, the program did indeed cover seven U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and the storm in the Northeast Monday.

Furthermore, in a special hour-long program Tuesday, the “News” covered how income tax filing day impacts illegal immigrants. And, on Wednesday, even with the release of the controversial videotape of the assassin, the “News” did a rather detailed report on the Supreme Court’s decision on partial-birth abortion, as well as a segment on the bloody day in Iraq, followed by a report on the record close on Wall Street of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and the death of actress Kitty Carlisle.

As such, Maher’s facts – as typical – were quite inaccurate. However, as this was the biggest massacre at an educational facility in American history, why was Maher so offended by the amount of airtime this story got? This was especially curious given his opening remark to Moyers concerning the great job the media did with Hurricane Katrina as it seems safe to assume that Maher wasn’t offended at all by the media’s wall-to-wall coverage of a natural disaster as long as they were beating up the president in so doing.

Next up on Maher’s idiocy plate was referencing an article published Thursday by the McClatchy Group about a supposedly new strategy in Iraq:

Headline: Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy. Okay, we’ve been hearing for years now, from the Bush administration, this is the cornerstone of their Iraq policy: “We’ll stand down when they stand up.” Today, “Sorry, we’re giving up on that.” Seems like a big story. We didn’t hear anything about it because Alec Baldwin had a phone conversation with his daughter.

Amazing. Of course, like many people, it seems that Maher only reads headlines and ledes, for the piece in question didn’t actually state that there had been any official change in policy at all. As Bruce McQuain of the Q and O blog pointed out Friday:

First military planners have not "abandoned" the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home earlier. That idea is still a part of the plan and a valid mission. Instead, a different tactic has been added to that "idea". As COL Keck [who is quoted in the article] points out, that remains a mission in addition to the new mission of clear, hold and build. Thus the "surge" and the announcement of it's [sic] purpose.

Why is it these people think that bringing a new mission on line and expanding the number of troops somehow translates into the abandonment of the mission of training? And, why, given the reason for the surge (give the Iraqis time to stand up the government and the security forces and take charge of their country), would we stop training them?

Of course, as is typical these days, the sources of information for this supposed change in policy were all anonymous:

The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

As such, Bill, maybe that’s why nobody bothered reporting this story, for it was a figment of this reporter’s imagination, and was rather invalidated in the subsequent paragraphs if you would have bothered reading the entire piece.

Of course, it seems that Moyers also ignored the body of this article, for he responded:

When I saw that, Bill, I read that story, I thought that, how many Americans is this president willing to sacrifice on the altar of his ego because what he’s saying is, “Step aside Iraqis and let, let our guys die.” And if you can’t, if you can’t teach, if you can’t train Iraqis to be good soldiers, you can’t teach them to be good citizens. So, he’s giving up on democracy at the same time he’s giving up on having Iraqis do what American boys are doing.

Actually, Bill, maybe you ought to read the whole article before you jump to such a specious and unqualified conclusion.

Sadly, that wasn’t the last despicable comment from Moyers:

One reason I did this documentary is we’re entering the fifth year of this war. Tens of thousands of people have died and are still dying. And the press has never come to grips with its complicity in helping this administration market a war that is being fought under false pretenses.

Nice huh? But it got worse after Maher asked his guest what we can do about it. Better brace yourselves:

And the fact of the matter is until there are more Cindy Sheehans getting out and saying, “My son should not go and die in Iraq for the reasons that are being offered,” then we’re not going to do anything about it.”

Yes, Bill, that’s what America needs: more Cindy Sheehans.

Maher then made a very peculiar comment about pictures of the war and the Virginia Tech massacre that seemed to disparage the innocent students that were senselessly slaughtered last Monday:

I saw on the news, all the newscasts showed pictures of the students who were killed at Virginia Tech. Uh, I don’t remember ever seeing a picture on television of an Iraqi soldier. And it seems perverse, because the Iraqi, the soldiers, the Americans who volunteered and went to Iraq, to me they’re heroes because they put themselves in harm’s way, and that’s a lot different than just finding yourselves in harm’s way.

Frankly, though I think he worded this poorly, doesn’t it seem that Maher was saying that we shouldn’t have seen pictures of these students and teachers because they didn’t volunteer to be slaughtered? Furthermore, we see Iraqi soldiers on the news all the time, Bill. What stations are you watching?

Regardless of the answer, I did also want to point out that despite this really atrocious segment with Moyers, Friday’s “Real Time” was actually a fabulous installment, as Maher’s panel for a change included two conservatives – National Review’s John O’Sullivan, and Republican strategist Amy Holmes, along with Montana’s Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Maher ought to try this format of having two liberals (including himself) and two conservatives more often, for a much more balanced discussion ensued than normal, making for one of the most interesting “Real Times” of the season so far.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Shouldn't the market decide t

Shouldn't the market decide the show's format?

Not when it comes to liberal

Not when it comes to liberal media.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

That's a fairly chilling dist

That's a fairly chilling distinction.  I would hope that the NB community would join me in disassociating themselves from this view.

Methinks you have mis-underst

Methinks you have mis-understood the view.  I will re-phrase it.  The market should determine the format of shows however in the liberal media this does not happen as the media promotes their viewpoint rather than the market.  There are just too too many quotes from the Dan Rathers out there which support the contention of the medias holier-than-thou attitude.  Look at the fairness doctrine being bantered about because Air America can't make it.  Look at the movie industry where the G movies do well but the 'artistes' won't make them. 

Isn't irrational behavior by

Isn't irrational behavior by investors, businesses, consumers, a part of any market?

just as ducking points is par

just as ducking points is part of a debate?

I just want to know why marke

I just want to know why market inefficiencies in the media business are perceived by you to be unique?

i believe my original stateme

i believe my original statement stands for itself (and you understand it as you are obviously not a fool)and you are attempting to obsfucate. 

My other response would be that i want to know how a controlled nuclear fusion reaction can be used for power but some things are beyond us. 

The liberal television media

The liberal television media works hard at trying to shape market forces into what they perceive to be "the way it should be".  

Why it works in TV and not Radio is beyond me.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

competition

competition

I agree that competition has

I agree that competition has definately mattered in radio. My question should have been why competition has not done the same for TV.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

the expense of getting in onc

the expense of getting in once the big three were settled in their ways.  I have no idea how moch it cost the (then) Twentieth Century Fox group to join the club

CTi think your question still

CT

i think your question still stands as to why did the handlers of none of the big three alphabets not go where the money was(is) but rather continued to pursue an ideological agenda?  

"If i knew all the answers i'd run for God"     Corp. Klinger

radio lacks the visual hook

Talk radio lends itself more to thought than TV which relies on the visual, sexy hook.

Much easier to feed them crap when they're getting a boost from stars like Charlie Sheen or Dick Gere.  Alec Baldwin, Pink Floyd (awesome music, but no dog in the fight) Cheryl Crow.  All have to sell to a Global audience.

The beautiful people think this way so I should too.

JMSU

JMSU,

To qoute you from another thread, "non sequitur."

First off, where in this piece did I suggest the market shouldn't decide? Furthermore, regardless of the market, I still have the right to express a view, correct? Or, do you only hold out such for folks you agree with?

As for the market's role in media content, I offer the New York Times as an example of how such forces appear irrelevant. After all, the stock has been declining for years, as have profits. Yet, they keep their losing format.

Moreover, the network news programs have seen continued declines in their market share of viewers for almost three decades. They haven't changed their formats much, have they?

In the end, market forces do seem to mold behavior in many industries, but not always the media's.   ns

A debate is a series of argum

A debate is a series of arguments.  I was not directly responding to any particular argument that you made, but was presenting one alternative view on how Bill Maher (and producers, network, etc.) should structure the program.

My original post has sparked debate, and has caused at least one NB commenter to declare that some programming should be regulated by a non-market force.  I think his/her position is wackier than yours.

No JMSU it shouldn't

No JMSU it shouldn't, Jesse Jackson and the Revereand Al Sharpton should decide, and all I saw on this clip were two white elite power males from the old boy network.

The MSM reported alot of stor

The MSM reported alot of stories about Saddam's WMD in the 90's. I  wonder if Moyers did the same?

Bill and Bill just love all

Bill and Bill just love all the negative stuff. That's all they do. Just like the Donald Sutherland character in "Kelly's Heroes" when he'd say "again with the negative waves".

I'm not inviting either of the Bills to my funeral.

Don't call me johnson

"When I saw that, Bill, I read that story, I thought that, how many Americans is this president willing to sacrifice on the altar of his ego....."

Ha, this coming from political minion for President Johnson, Bill Moyers, who is known to be responsible for ordering the very first political attack add leaving American politics bereft of discussing the real issues ever since.  Johnson's political hack Bill Moyers was not concerned in the least for sacrificing Goldwater on the alter of Johnson's ego when it suited Moyers' purpose.

AC

Hugh,

Lest we not forget, "In your guts, you know he's nuts": http://www.tvacres.com/plants_flowers_daisy.htm

Civility on the left, correct? And now this guy is a revered journalist?  :-)     ns

Scary Noel

Scary Noel. Although, in some strange bizzaro-world way, it all makes sense that God-hating Maher would revere mud-throwing Moyers.

Forgive me for missing this show (I'm trying to get in the Guinness World Book for most consecutive Maher shows missed) but I was wondering if Maher recoiled like a vampire in the sunlight when Moyers used the word 'altar'?

AC

Hugh,

No. Maher's okay with religious words when used in conjunction with a Bush or Republican bash!  :-)    ns

What is funny is he's got D

What is funny is he's got Dan Rather apparently in this piece saying the press 'blew it' in its lead up coverage of the war for not figuring out bush was 'lying', etc.

http://www.nyjtimes....

Dan Rather on 9/17/01 on Letterman saying we need to get rid of Saddam and if he's not connected to 9/11 he's got his hands in many other things terror related. Did bush make him say this? Or was it all the reporting on the issue in the 90's and Bill Clinton making Regime change in Iraq official policy of the US?

acumen

I don't believe he read it at all. I could tell by the tone in his voice he hadn't.

 So, I read it, and it's the reporters fantasy just as the lead points out.

 I'm pretty surprised the "newsers" get away with what they do nowadays. I don't know how many supposedly respectable news talking heads blabbed to me that we abandoned the war in Afghanistan and implied over and over again that there are no troops there.

 The writing and speaking is getting so bad, it's almost a constant streams of lies. I do wonder what percentage pf people reading and viewing this crap are fooled by it.

"Buying the War"

Bill Moyer's upcoming "Buying the War," has all the earmarks of a Michael Moore documentary - a complete dismissal of pertinent history and carefully selected popular media bits destined to smear one side of the isle, without any due attention to much the same thing on the other side.

Moyers will attack the media for supporting the run-up to the war. He very well may use the Washington Post as proof of an outlet that has said they should have played it differently. But my memory, and a quick look at the history -- I did a quick search for "WMD" from Nov.1, 2002 to the end of April, 2003 - showed more than 1/2 of the pieces being at a minimum, skeptical. I only looked at the abstracts, but a couple seemed to be heading in the Olbedog direction. A few seemed to be rather historical in nature -- like: "Hey, this is the same stuff the Clinton administration has been telling us for years. Why should we doubt it." The Washington Post will tell us in these early days, that the real reason that Bush is going into Iraq, is for humanitarian reasons - a critical point, which the media finds it all too easy to forget - and a point that Moyers would have little interest in.

Moyers will say things like, 'A video clip shows a Fox anchor saying "A former top Iraqi nuclear scientist tells Congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005." '  But, will he play the clip of Senator Carl Levin, Senate Intelligence Committee, telling Chirs Matthews on Hardball in Nov. 2005, that - "look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way.  That is not in dispute.  There is plenty of evidence of that."

Moyers will spend much effort in trying to make the case that it was the Bush administration that was making up all of the threat stuff and the WMD's - but he will not bother to remind us that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Sec. Cohen were all on record in 2002 and 2003 confirming that they believed that Saddam had and was all of that.

Will he bother to present John Edwards very important statement on the issue. Edwards told Russert (in fact will Russert ever mention it again?) that to make sure that Bush was giving us the correct information on Iraq, WMD's etc., that he went back to the Clinton administration and was assured that the information was correct.

Moyers will get real snippy in his little one-sided presentation. He will present things like, "George Will is seen saying that Hussein "has anthrax.." Really now? Now, belive it or not - Moyer's gulible Bush hating audience will jump on that one - if it were on Bill Maher's show, the audience would do that  pathetic physco clapping, cheering and catcallling thing  - and of course Saddam had anthrax (that was the easy one), but will Moyers remind his viewers of what the Clinton administration said that Saddam had?

Nov. 1997 Defense Secretary William S. Cohen "Iraq has secretly stockpiled enough deadly poison gas to kill everyone on Earth despite nearly seven years of international inspections"

What PBS really needs to put up is a documentary which exposes the full story of how Moyers, on behalf of the LBJ adminstration, personally requested that Hoover find dirt on the Barry Goldwater camp, asking him to find out if there were "homosexuals" working for Goldwater.

 

I always wondered if Moyers w

I always wondered if Moyers was trolling for a date when he asked Hoover to find gays in the Goldwater camp.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

moyers

A PBS prostitute named Bill Moyers

Told lies on behalf of his employers

He sold his soul cheap

To Bill Maher the creep

Each of them America'a destroyers.

Bill Moyers

A fact from Moyers biography:

He graduated from the University of Texas in 1956, then spent a year studying church history at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, before returning to study for a bachelor of divinity degree at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, which he completed in 1959.

Bill Moyers, a man on the cloth and lover of Christ, has joined in an unholy alliance with Bill Maher, a man of the rag and hater of Christ, all because of their common hatred of G.W. Bush.  

Typical of liberals attempting to make their point, sleeping with the enemy, if it meets their needs, is not beyond one of their methods.

In listening and watching Moyers over the years, it seems to me that he has slowly lost any semblance of reality, as his irrational attacks have become more strident.

He pontificates to the point where, it seems, he wants everyone to genuflect, or be lost in the nether-world of the “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy”.

Wow misterbill, that ranks

Wow misterbill, that ranks up there as one of your best! Wish I could do that.

 This show is the biggest re

 This show is the biggest reason we dropped HBO (that and Rome was finished). 

More BDD (Bush derangement sy

More BDD (Bush derangement syndrome)
These lunkheads cant accept the fact that Hussein's Iraq was a beehive of diverse terrorrists (his militia,yasin,nidal,abbas, AQ) who worked with, or in spite of, the govt of Iraq. 
God Bless President Bush for eliminating the Hussein cesspool and let's see if we can stabilize this difficult situation.  With or without media support.....

Saddam was paying $25,000.00

Saddam was paying $25,000.00 to suicide bombers families! For an excellent review of how it is going on in Iraq today, read Max Boot in the Weekly Standard.

"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."
- Henny Youngman

Yes, look:MJB has BDD----Stel

Yes, look:

MJB has BDD----Stelazine would help you
he again links to the tired media  waffling line:  they werent working together....blah blah blah
Hey doofus, AQ was still operating in Iraq even if they allegedly werent in cahoots with Iraq.  If true, is that somehow better?
Where is you link denying Abdul Yasin, Nidal, Or Abbas were there (i.e. Hall of Fame terrorists)?
BDD is alive and well.

jon, it's BDS not BDD

jon, it's BDS not BDD (which applies equally well to liberals), just trying to help. I know it's early :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Bill Moyers is an old man.He

Bill Moyers is an old man.
He needs ours prayers.
Let's all pray he doesn't get any older.