Brent Bozell, President of
the Media Research Center, which publishes
NewsBusters, appeared Tuesday night on FNC's "Hannity & Colmes"
to criticize PBS for returning left-winger Bill Moyers to the
taxpayer-funded network just weeks after PBS spiked Frank Gaffney's
documentary, "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center,"
which was intended to be part of last week's 11-part America at a
Crossroads series. Wednesday night, most PBS stations will run Moyers's
left-wing screed, "Buying
the War," about how the news media was supposedly complicit
in the Bush administration's false contentions that got the U.S. into
the Iraq war. (More below on the segment and topic)
Video clip (5:58): Real
(10.2 MB at higher-quality 225 kbps) or Windows Media
(3.8 MB at lower-quality 81 kbps), plus MP3
audio (2.1 MB)
ALEXANDRIA, VA -- Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell commented today on PBS's decision to broadcast Bill Moyers's "Buying the War" documentary while refusing to air Frank Gaffney's "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center:"
"All PBS has become is welfare for activist has-beens," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center.
"Their editorial rationale is self-incriminating. They subject viewers to the fanatical work of liberals like Bill Moyers, using viewers' tax money and airwaves to peddle Moyers's notion that the liberal media coverage of the Iraq war wasn't liberal enough. But, at the same time, they claim that Frank Gaffney's very balanced and measured documentary on centrist Muslims does not meet the standards necessary for airing on their stations.
"Why? Because they can -- and that makes the words 'public television' an oxymoron."
"What PBS and Moyers should own up to is not having the backbone to allow a balanced, viable, perspective to stand on its own two feet because it clashes with their fringe ideology," Bozell concluded.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This segment was delicious.Br
April 24, 2007 - 22:26 ET by bigtimerThis segment was delicious.
Brent twisted Colmes like a pretzel.
Moyers was proven a decieving leftist fool.
...and guess what...the whole point is we are paying for this all with PBS!
Excellent job Mr. Bozell, I caught the whole thing...thank you for your tireless work.
Right on bigtimer!!!!!!
April 24, 2007 - 22:40 ET by jmad627Right on bigtimer!!!!!!
Didn't catch Calamity and Sto
April 24, 2007 - 23:03 ET by Del DolemonteDidn't catch Calamity and Stones this evening, but an hour earlier, O'Reilly thouroughly picked and cleaned Moyers to the nth degree. With video and audio evidence.
The funniest part was when O'Reilly then had his former Harvard "professor" Marvin Kalb on, who tried to say (with a straight face, no less) that George Soros wasn't a "leftist". O'Reilly cleaned his former teacher's clock as well. Kalb came off as totally clueless.
Saw that too Del.Double your
April 24, 2007 - 23:15 ET by bigtimerSaw that too Del.
Double your pleasure, double your fun...it was a two fer' tonight when it came to the enemy within leftist Moyers that I am sick of paying for.
BOR did great with his old professor Kalb...had him in a barrel there!
PBS..not hypocrites whatsoever...no, we can't show Gaffney's show...just their propaganda and we tax payers foot this leftist agenda crap.
This should cheer you up: &
April 24, 2007 - 23:38 ET by Night WatchmanThis should cheer you up:
"ON MONDAY, President Bush released plans to inject more tax dollars
into the government's propaganda machinery while slashing the budget
for the nation's public broadcasters."
"Bush's proposed 2007 budget
calls for a $671.9 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG), the federal agency that supervises all US government
non-military propaganda. Bush’s budget also cuts by more than $53
million money set aside for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB), the agency that allocates federal money for NPR, PBS and other
federally funded media."
http://mediacitizen....
Hello, Night.There have been
April 25, 2007 - 07:02 ET by dahliatraversHello, Night.
There have been rumblings in Congress about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine for all the airwaves. While I'm not crazy about that idea, what do you think about bringing the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves paid with tax dollars - NPR, PBS, etc.? So that both liberal and conservative views on all issues are given equal time.
Maybe PBS should be totally
April 25, 2007 - 07:31 ET by sarcasmoMaybe PBS should be totally defunded, and nobody -- tax and spend or borrow and spend -- should be 'given' any free media time they don't buy themselves. It's a radical idea called "capitalism." Applies to numerous other big-government agencies which should be 100%-defunded, as well.
JMR
Brent Bozell
April 24, 2007 - 23:53 ET by dawkins30Hey guys,
First time here...this site is great!!
Welcome!Make yourself at ho
April 24, 2007 - 23:56 ET by Free StinkerWelcome!
Make yourself at home. :-)
Welcome, its like my wife tel
April 25, 2007 - 06:24 ET by USA4freedomWelcome, its like my wife tells me this is better then yelling at the TV.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I saw this segment, & a
April 24, 2007 - 22:39 ET by jmad627I saw this segment, & as usual that pinhead Colmes kept interupting Mr. Bozell whenever he had a cogent point to make. Also Colmes couldn't, or wouldn't provide Brent with an example of anything that is considered conservative that is broadcast on PBS. Colmes most likely couldn't is because there is nothing conservative oriented ever aired on PBS. What I thought was great, though, was Brent laughing at Colmes, because he is completely clueless.
It seems that when challenged, Colmes regresses to his rote talking points, that is when he isn't constantly interuptinig his guests when they present an argument he disagrees with. A true one note Johnny. Is it my imagination, or does anyone else notice this?
I truely resent our tax dollars going into this left wing propaganda outlet.
Buying the War - a brattish rant by Moyers
April 24, 2007 - 22:42 ET by Gary HallBuying the War - a brattish rant by Moyers.
In the revisionist revisit of history - which will omit all of the obvious instant "oh, cheese, what about......." rebuttals, Moyers will say things like:
But, will he play the role of an objective journalist and play the video clip of Senator Carl Levin (D.), Senate Intelligence Committee, telling Chris 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 publicly confirming that they believed that Saddam had and was substantially all of that which was being presented.
Will Moyers bother to present Sen. John Edwards very important statement on the issue. Edwards carefully explained, in 2004, to Tim 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. You see, the Clinton administration was advising the Democrats that the Bush administration was laying out the correct picture of Saddam and his Iraq.
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, believe it or not - Moyer's gullible 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 catcalling 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"
So according to leading Democrats and the last administration, Saddam had nuclear weapons, enough deadly poison gas to kill everyone on earth, and Bush and Cheney were giving us the straight story.
On making the case for war, and convincing the public:
Albright Defends U.S. ----- ''A few dozen hecklers'' will not deter the United States from its mission in Iraq, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today.
Did Bush and Cheney speak like Sec. Albright did?
On death. Well, once again a MSM media favorite Sec. of State Madeleine Albright, pretty much summed up the Clinton administration's view of what Saddam was all about, and what we had to do. In May, 1966, when asked by CBS's Leslie Stahl:
On the topic of the media being complicit, during the lead up to the war, I personally believe that a complete review of what the mainstream media was presenting to the reader and viewer would show that they were highly skeptical of President Bush’s War to remove Saddam Hussein, and played politics in presenting the news. In regards to Moyers’ claim having some resemblance of accuracy in it, I’d submit that it was because they still believed President Clinton’s presentation of the same facts.
Wow. That is tough talk. I wonder if President Bush ever said anything so callous?
Will Moyers allow such pertinent information to be even introduced for debate?
And don't forget-Bill Clinton
April 24, 2007 - 23:07 ET by Del DolemonteAnd don't forget-Bill Clinton's own Justice Department in 1998 handed down a Federal indictment of Osama bin Laden that specifically noted a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. I'm sure if one asked Preacher Moyers about that, he would try and change the subject, or better yet, shout over the person who brought it up.
You got that right Del, pre
April 24, 2007 - 23:45 ET by jmad627You got that right Del, preacher Moyers would no doubt change the subject, llike a typical lib.
Did someone mention Saddam & Terrorists?
April 25, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Free StinkerDid someone mention Saddam & Terrorists?
calling Mobius! calling Mob
April 25, 2007 - 00:11 ET by Dee Bunkcalling Mobius! calling Mobius! He needs to read Free's post above. I'm so glad you did this Free because it is so tiresome trying to repeat this stuff all the time.
Thank you, but the Moobats
April 25, 2007 - 00:17 ET by Free StinkerThank you, but the Moobats will ignore it - too many facts. ;-)
Do you like how I found stuff from BBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times All Favorites of the Libs, so they cannot complain with "all your cites are from Fauxnews"
Oh yeah Free - it's a great
April 25, 2007 - 00:24 ET by Dee BunkOh yeah Free - it's a great job. The thing that kills me the most is every Network had Salman Pak and pictures of the airplane fuselage used in the training camp and now they just pretend like it was never there. I can't believe those pictures didn't stick in any liberals head.
Free, those post are great!
April 25, 2007 - 06:30 ET by USA4freedomFree, those post are great!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Gary; Thank you.I wish you
April 25, 2007 - 06:44 ET by RDWGary; Thank you.
I wish you would contribute more frequently to NewsBusters; I look forward to having my brain defogged.
Ps. Speaking of brains, may I borrow yours, because someone may have erased my memory!
I cannot for the life of me, remember hearing anything during that time period, claiming that the Bush administration actually knew that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Again, unless aliens erased my memory, I vaguely remember that the Bush administration postulated a theory based on the best available intelligence; and which included the evidence that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer.
I trust that the acts of a mass murder may still be submitted to the court of liberal opinion.
“ I object!” says: Ex-US attorney-general Ramsey Clark. Past criminal behavior is not relevant in the court of liberal opinion!
If I may suggest that it would be logically inconsistent for the Bush Administration to have claimed that Iraq definitively had WMD. Because; why then would the Bush Administration agree to UN verification? I think the point was that Saddam Hussein was a known liar. Hello?
If the Bush Administration already had knowledge of WMD and knew the location of these weapons, the Bush Administration would have simply eliminated the problem via air strikes (like Clinton) or by other military action. It would have been easily justifiable and enumerated by the many sanctions passed by the United Nations
I remember that many countries suspected that Iraq either still possessed WMD’s or could create new WMD’s in the near future.
And based on Iraq’s previous history of genocide, was it not prudent to address the prospect of a future attack by Iraq given their past history e.g. the assignation attempt on G.H.Bush, as well as the actual invasion of a sovereign country, and by ignoring the threat of Saddam Hussein, the United States might have in the future suffered a catastrophic attack by Iraq.
Please send a supercharged (Cryogenic-super-brain packed in spring water) please include batteries.
To: RDW C/O NewsBusters 2007
RDW - whew!
April 25, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Gary HallRDW - whew! For starters, thank you for your kind words - better than I got from my daughter this morning - Well bless her heart, she's tired - up to 2:00 AM doing yet another required essay on American exceptionalism. We buried a trap for the commie teacher - if he bites - I'm going after his job. He'll be #2, and it will be #2 with only 1 square of TP on his new limited budget.
I thinks you maybe splitting hairs on your first dilemma, re: the WMD's - what Bush and gang actually stated they believed. Bottom line is yes. I suspect they did believe that they were there - to a great extent, and they believed that Saddam could reconstitute in a flash and would and could use them again.
Foolishly, they must have assumed that since the prior administration had expressed, consistently and vividly, in the years preceding the 4 years without the inspectors, which Bill Clinton removed, that the media was already accepting of the assumed view of the issues. Quite contrary to what Bill Moyers will carefully attempt to construct with mirrors tonight, the media started questioning the Bush administration at every turn. All of the CYA attempts from Al Gore, Bill Clinton and their gang to keep the media straight on the issues of WMD's and Saddam's threat, were ignored by the media, as the media was never to buy bread from the Bush team - not on Iraq, not on Taxes, not on SS reform...etc.
It is my view, that Clinton and his administration officials, who did speak out rather solidly in protecting theses consistent views, did so as to keep the final question buried. Why? They would have assumed that, if full facts ever come out - that they would be held accountable as well. They underestimate the lack of ethics in our MSM press corps.
The difficulty here has been the stupidity of the Bush administration, not to put the statements of the Clinton administration right back to the press. "Helen, why don't you go ask Bill Clinton, or Gore, or Cohen -you trust them - did you not hear what they said last week. Stop with this childish game of blame, Helen - obviously our (now as before) government’s agencies have become so huge and bureaucratic, that problems do indeed seem to exist. Let's work together to find out where we, all of us, got the information wrong - and then we will do our best to correct it. That is what we want, is it not?"
One other important issue. Where is the left on the 25 years of Saddam's tyrannical and genocidal rule. Saddam invaded Iran during Jimmy Carter's term (some say with Carter's blessings). Oh, but Moyers has that one picture of Rummy with Saddam - that settles it all, for the left. One million died. Chemical WMD's were used. Human Rights Watch, in so many words, called him a genocidal maniac - Why did the left side of the isle, those so called peace loving human rights activists not march in the streets for 25 years demanding that Saddam not be removed and tried for Crimes Against Humanity at the Hague?
During the late 90's the left opposed the sanctions. The left here, and the left in Europe. There was quite a movement going on. They were not pleased with Clinton's insistence that the sanctions would be there for as long as Saddam was there. But suddenly when Bush decides to put an end to Saddam - to get this horror over with, once and for all - the left (and, of course, the media) is chanting,” But wait, the sanctions are working."
Yea MY tax dollars,, lets sub
April 25, 2007 - 01:30 ET by upcountrywaterYea MY tax dollars,, lets submerge billy moyers in a jar of urine.
Detonated Plutomium has a very large carbon footprint.
Night Watchman-That's just wr
April 25, 2007 - 14:51 ET by ferrarimanf355Night Watchman-
That's just wrong. It really is. Why is Bush setting aside more money for propaganda purposes? I'm more outraged about that, to be honest.
I really honestly think that the problem with public broadcasting in America is that the CPB relies so much on government funding, and when there are cuts, they have to go and get corporations to underwrite shows. This political influence is the problem. And honestly, this political influence may have also resulted in that moderate Muslim doc getting pulled. Instead of defunding PBS, why not focus outrage on the government interference in pubilc broadcasting? Because, regardless of what anyone thinks, public broadcasting is important in democracy, to have at least one media source free from government and corporate interference. That's my honest opinion.
(And before anyone accuses me of cutting and running, I'll be back around 10-ish to elaborate on this. I just have classes to go to.)
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...