http://www.atlargely.com:80/2007/07/bill-moyers-aga.htmlBill Moyers again shows what real journalism is about...The Taboo Topic: - snip -
But something odd happened on the way to the impeachment talk and the appropriate political views that were supposed to be cued. Neither Nichols or Fein defended the Democrats, if anything, they skewered them for their lack of duty to their oath of office. Both agreed on the facts of the issues, that is, that serious crimes have been committed by the Executive. And both agreed that there is a remedy in impeachment and that such a remedy was the duty of Congress.
The conversation was strictly about the issues, minus the politics and both men were eloquent and passionate and not once did one of them take the now all to familiar "defend the party" posture. This amazingly informative discussion (wow, remember the old days of informative journalism, actual substance based conversations?) was mostly due to Moyers as the host. He did not invite shills or pundits, hired out to spread talking points like a virus against the minds of unsuspecting Americans. If Moyers wanted to play Wolf Blitzer, he simply would have had on Donna Brazil (representing someone from the left I assume) and John Fund (representing the money side of the Republican party while posing as a journalist, hard tight rope to balance it is) and the two would have had a typical political opinion festival. Brazil would have argued closer to the facts, simply because the facts are in opposition to this administration. Fund would have argued party affiliation. If the shoe were on the other foot, Brazil would have likely argued party affiliation and Fund would have likely argued closer to the facts, because they were in opposition to the President (in this case, Clinton).
- snip -
This was indeed impressive and my thirst for it reminded me once again just how compromised our corporate press is, how compromised our Congress is, and how broken this country is when the crimes we have witnessed against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people over the last six years have still not led to impeachment hearings - just the hearings even.
On the Facts of It:Facts are not fair nor balanced. They are what they are. Yet our media treats idiotic drivel out of the mouths of paid consultants on equal footing with that of an actual expert in a particular field or actual facts. I always point to the hypothetical example of what I call the "flat earth unfairness doctrine," which stipulates that under the rules of engagement for reporting the news, both sides must be equally represented even if one side is not reputable, taking money for their "educated opinion," or defying the laws of physics and seeing pink elephants in tutus in their spare time.
By this doctrine, a fool taking money from a group of "flatlanders," as I call them, comes on a show and represents a factually unsupportable positions such as "the earth is flat." This person is given the same consideration, air time, and "fairness," as the scientist presenting the facts, namely, that the earth is round. So this presenting of facts as though they have equal footing with the opinion of shills and fools is what the public has become accustomed to. The result has been a complete removal of actual fact in favor of opinion, where the journalist plays host and lets each side present their "theory," while the public becomes more and more confused.
- snip -
Why is the corporate media not talking about impeachment?Aside from the polls, there is really no serious examination of impeachment and educating the public on what at least half of the country wants to understand. I keep wondering why this is, and then it dawned on me on me tonight. The problem is in the flatlander doctrine of having a right/left narrative.
MORE
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
