Send Moyers, Guns, And Money
April 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm
In today’s Washington Post, Tom Shales reviews Bill Moyers’ PBS show on Iraq called “Buying Iraq.”
This excerpt is stunning:
Pressures subtle and blatant were brought to bear. Phil Donahue’s nightly MSNBC talk show was virtually the only program of its type that gave antiwar voices a chance to be heard. Donahue was canceled 22 days before the invasion of Iraq, Moyers says. The reason was supposedly low ratings, but the New York Times intercepted an in-house memo in which a network executive complained: “Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
Making this the evidence for canceling Phil Donahue’s MSNBC show is about as flimsy as, well, using WMD as a basis for going to war. Some might say.
The fact is, the Donahue show was lousy TV. I worked at MSNBC at the time he was cancelled and was struck by how bad it was. Why? Because he plain came across as someone who hates America. He probably doesn’t, but who wants to watch a show where it seems like America gets beat up every night?
Some MSNBCers doubted the war before it was launched, and presented those views on TV. My old boss Chris Matthews among them. I disagreed with them, but I’ve got no problem with reasonable fact-based debate. Donahue, however, seemed to doubt America. That’s why no one watched.
Yes, ratings obviously were part of the reason for Donahue’s cancellation. But ratings weren’t the sole reason. Heck, Alan Keyes ratings were actually going up when he got dumped by MSNBC.
There was lots of things wrong with Phil Donahue. Starting with Phil Donahue himself — and his hiring.
Don Surber said,
April 25, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Donahue: 1980s man in the 21st century
Jabba the Tutt said,
April 25, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
I remember when MSNBC announced that they were going to make Donahue the centerpiece of their prime time schedule. That day I predicted that Donahue would fail (too bad I don’t make the cash that tv execs make). The reason was simple. Donahue had no audience. He’d failed in competition with Oprah and other daytime shows. Donahue failed with his Phil and Vladimir show. Donahue had no audience out there, who were just panting to hear and see Donahue. Donahue is simply the male Rosie. No one can stand to listen to him or her for any length of time.
TallDave said,
April 25, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I watched a few times out of morbid fascination. He seemed stuck in the 60s: wild-eyed over-the-top anti-war leftist cheerleading. I kept waiting for someone to burn a bra.
Still waiting for that Pravda Broadcasting System documentatry that demolishes the anti-war myths of the pro-surrender Vietnam crowd, such as the oft-repeated claims that Laos and Cambodia would not fall like dominoes, that the North would hold free elections as it promised, and that millions would not die in the aftermath since Communists were just idealistic agrarian reformers. I guess some truths still too inconvenient…
M. Simon said,
April 25, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
IWhen I was a Democrat I was a liberal. My liberalism hasn’t changed my party did.
The aftermath of ‘Nam changed my mind. All the mis-calculations that TallDave mentions.
I Support Democracy In Iraq
Vinny Vidivici said,
April 25, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I’m similarly puzzled when I hear European media grandees scold their American counterparts for ‘cheerleading’ prior to the invasion of Iraq. U.S. media provided far more visible opposition prior to the invasion — particularly, favorable coverage of anti-war protests — than did the Democrats. Heck, I was already disgusted with the NYTimes’ reflex oppositionalism by the time Kabul fell.
It is completely understandable that media echoed the prevailing wisdom within the world’s chancellories and intelligence services regarding Iraqi WMDs. After all, these assumptions had been received wisdom for most of the 90’s — that is, if all the tough talk on Iraq we used to get back then from many of today’s war opponents is any indication.
Moyer’s faux-mea culpa is calculated; a phoney pageant of self-flagellation designed to reinforce the pre-adolescent ‘we-were-all-snookered-by-Bush’ alibi.
RW said,
April 25, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
I suppose that the decision for the final replacement of Donahue - Keith Olbermann - was one part of the grand conspiracy (why do people on the left always see conspiracies?) that Moyers conveniently left out. ‘Course, I’m sure Olby is only a ‘moderate’ to Moyers.
PD said,
April 25, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Phil Donahue is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, a truly heroic man.
bruce said,
April 25, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
“Phil Donahue is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, a truly heroic man.”
Astonishing comment. Simply astonishing.
Do you actually know the definition of the word “hero”? Could you please illustrate ANY way Donohue would come remotely close to the definition?
I don’t think you can. I don’t thing ANYONE can - for there IS no way.
Laika's Last Woof said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Right, I’m sure if any of the passengers of United 93 were alive today they’d all tip their fire extinguishers in salute to the heroic Phil Donahue.
mishu said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Jeez, doesn’t the left remember their argument against the war *because* Saddam would use WMD’s againts advancing forces? When’s Bill going to cover that?
John said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
“PD said,
April 25, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Phil Donahue is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, a truly heroic man. ”
ahem, Bruce, did you notice the initials of the person who posted this? I would guess that Phil Donahue did not actually post it, just someone using his initials to mock him.
The Sanity Inspector said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
TallDave:
I think they’ve admitted that things were a little unpleasant in SE Asia for some months after “liberation”. Fortunately for the sake of their heads not exploding, they have Noam Chomsky to blame everything on the United States.
junyo said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
I, for one, remember Phil fondly, even if his MSNBC show was dreck. When I was a kid, Phil simply WAS intelligent TV, putting on pretty balanced shows, arguing the strong and weak points of each side, maniacally charging down the aisles to give the mike to an audience member. Oprah killed him precisely because of that; she was a New Liberal. Not afraid to advocate or stack the deck in favor of their argument, since ultimately they’re RIGHT. Phil’s old style, in which you actually had to listen to other points of view, fell out of fashion. People tend to forget that Oprah was right in the muck with Geraldo and Morton Downey Jr until she made her money and went all highbrow. When Phil came back, unfortunately the lessoned he’d learned was that his show should be an unabashed infomercial for his personal politics. All the stuff that made Phil Phil was gone, and he was just another interchangable screeching banshee.
clazy said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
In his “review” of Moyer’s latest polemic, Shales calls a Presidential press conference from March 6, 2003 “Exhibit A” in the case demonstrating that the press actively sold the war.
Shales: “Exhibit A — the first event recalled in this report — is a news conference by President Bush on March 6, 2003, which Moyers says is two weeks before Bush ‘will order America to war.’The press conference was a sham, with Bush calling only on ‘friendly’ reporters who’d ask friendly questions. The corker was this scorching investigative query: ‘Mr. President, how is your faith guiding you?’”
We may as well save on terminology and call this Exhibit A in the case to prove Moyers is a propagandist and Shales is a lazy fool. I looked up the press conference and found that the first five questions consisted of such friendly prompts as:
–”What harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum?” (Ron Fournier)
–”If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?” (Steve, no last name)
–”If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?” (Dick, no last name)
–”During the recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn’t see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.” (Jim Angle)
–”How would - sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place.” (John King)
Moyers is a liar, and if I may be so crude, Tom Shales licks his boot.
PersonFromPorlock said,
April 25, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Inspector:
“I think they’ve admitted that things were a little unpleasant in SE Asia for some months after “liberation”. Fortunately….”
…it was about then that, purely coincidentally, the media rediscovered the Nazi Holocaust and were too busy with it, for the next ten years or so, to pay much attention to ongoing butcheries. “Never again,” it turned out, was the perfect chant to drown out the screaming.
clazy said,
April 25, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
By the way, that question about praying looks like the single gimme, and if you look at the transcript it seems to have been drawn from a reporter, “April”, who was surprised to be called upon, as if Bush wanted a break and thought, Hey, there’s April, she’ll ask me something nice. Look:
THE PRESIDENT: April. Did you have a question, or did I call upon you cold?
Q Oh, I have a question. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I’m sure you do have a question.
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America - well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be “pray?” Because you’re saying, let’s continue the war on terror.
Mister Snitch! said,
April 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
“Moyers is a liar, and if I may be so crude, Tom Shales licks his boot.”
Aw, c’mon, Clazy. You can be cruder than that!
hedonist said,
April 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
The world has changed but the positions of people like Moyers and Donohue have not. Is there a name in English for a Colonel Blimp of the left? There will never be a Truth and Reconciliation panel in Algiers. N Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, post Shah Iran, Zimbabwe et alia. I understand that Pinochet and the Argentinian generals were bad men, but their body count is nothing compared to those anti Western revolutionaries. I have never heard a person of the left wax indignant about the crimes in those countries or venture a regret for his support of their ideology. Selective indignation is a form of bigotry. The left does not hate the same people that the KKK hates, but they hate in the same way.
Assistant Village Idiot said,
April 25, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Junyo, I remember the early Donahue like that. As time went on, however, Phil needed to keep ratings, and so brought on Frederick’s of Hollywood, appeared in a skirt, etc. There wasn’t a lot of intellectual meet on the bones at the end.
P from P - an exceptional observation. If it ever comes back around to you in conversation, it will be because I started using it.
clazy said,
April 25, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Yes, Mister Snitch, but if I expressed my feelings freely in this forum, my comment would get deleted. Imagine me like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAOFPSY4H20
but 30 years older….
Tman said,
April 25, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
I wouldn’t mind if Moyers would go back to interviewing the Joseph Campbell’s of the world. Talking about Jesus and Luke Skywalker and Superman together somehow makes him seem less crazy than this garbage.
AST said,
April 25, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
If Bill Moyers is your chosen voice in the media, you’ve got problems. He used to be the man who introduced us to Joseph Campbell and the power of myths. Now he stepped into the myths of the anti-war left and has become just another avatar, along with Jimmy Carter, for the empty ideology that nearly destroyed the Democratic Party 30 to 40 years ago, and handed Iran to the mullarchy that threatens us all today.
rastajenk said,
April 25, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
My favorite pre-war Donohue moment was when Susan Sarandon was on, and she said something about how her children came home from school and were scared that they’d have to move out of the country if they didn’t support the war.
Instead of asking why she let her children believe such nonsense, he just gave his patented shrug and smirk that says, “Whaddya gonna do? It’s a shame.” I knew then his show was doomed.
Jenn Mikosz said,
April 26, 2007 @ 5:52 am
Donahue always used to say, “But somewhere there’s a Poor Black Woman out there not getting an opportunity because of the White Guys who run the industry… Etc ”
Turns out he was right, and that Poor Black Woman was Oprah Winfrey. And Oprah ate his lunch in every TV market in America. And Donahue refused to be photographed with her. Hah!
Bandit said,
April 26, 2007 @ 8:31 am
Did Moyers just discover TV was about ratings? Oh yeah - he works at PBS.
boure said,
April 26, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
I blame it on That Girl.