That was a really great special. I did not get a chance to see all of it but from what I did see I liked it a lot. p

Posted by: Payshun | April 27, 2007 6:02 PM

Perhaps it might have also been that the European press is also a little biased? I think you consider them "free and independent" if they agree with your point of view. The Canadian CBC, for example, is notoriously biased in favour of liberal ideas. Don't be too quick to assume that media is unbiased just because you agree with them.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | April 27, 2007 7:45 PM

Well, part of the issue is the fact that in general the media of country X, will almost never criticize country X itself or its actions. So every once in a while it is a good idea to check out a foreign media source if one wants a more balanced view of one's own country.

Posted by: Ngchen | April 27, 2007 8:20 PM

I opposed the war from the beginning. Despite the press coverage, I was still able to find enough information to know that there were no weapons of mass destruction or any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and to be able to predict the disastrous course of the war and the current quagmire. I said as much to anyone who would listen, and it was one of the loneliest and most frustrating periods of my life. So my real question is: Where were the people who have suddenly discovered all these things back then? Where were the free and independent people? (All right, Kevin - the free and independent people who agreed with me; we heard plenty from those on the other side.)

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 27, 2007 9:37 PM

Butch, If the networks are not allowed to profit from their news programs, wouldn't that bias the news coverage to the particular viewpoint of the company that owns that network? If you have no incentive to attract visitors, you might as well put the news you want to see on the air.
Also, what about print and online? Should we have more regulation of that as well? Do you think that will be welcomed?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 27, 2007 10:36 PM

Perhaps it might have also been that the European press is also a little biased? I think you consider them "free and independent" if they agree with your point of view. The Canadian CBC, for example, is notoriously biased in favour of liberal ideas. Don't be too quick to assume that media is unbiased just because you agree with them. And thus don't be so quick to believe that we are biased just because we don't agree with you.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 27, 2007 11:44 PM

Socialistic (sic) agenda? who is suggesting nationalisation of industries? who is suggesting a centrally planned economy? who is suggesting a monopoly provision healthcare, telecoms and other infrastructure? who is suggesting redistribution of wealth through taxation and benefit or an incomes policy to create a range of 7x between richest and poorest? Who is suggesting public expenditure in excess of 50% of GDP These might be considered "socialist" or possibly "social democratic" (not "socialistic" a word that doesn't actually exist) policies. The answer is no one. Not Kucinich, not even Saunders, certainly no one on CNN. You have to remember that US politics takes place a million miles to the right of the rest of the world. There is no-one with a serious shot on power in America that could even be called as much of a socialist as Tony Blair - a prospect that would create great guffaws of laughter in the UK. Still build up another straw man, eh?

Posted by: l'etranger | April 28, 2007 12:42 AM

OK - I watched part of it but I did tape it so that I could look at it again. The one thing that I was able to catch is that Moyers used a lot of video footage that had several members of the adm talk about 'aquiring' WMD and the reporters would say 'we found no proof that Saddam or Iraq was purchasing material to build WMD. Hello - with the break up of the USSR there are hundreds if not thousands of WMD's that could be purchased from any number of countries that are short on cash but long on weapons. You have to listen very carefully. It is like the debate on Stem Cell Research - one side will say that the other is against SCR when 'in fact' they are not against SCR but embreonic SCR. Little suttleties like that. I look forward to watching the whole show and seeing what else I have to cut between the bone and marrow. Later - .

Posted by: moderatelad | April 28, 2007 4:55 AM

Ben Wheaton says: "The Canadian CBC, for example, is notoriously biased in favour of liberal ideas." First, a caveat. I do not know what you mean by "liberal", Ben. I do not know whether you are using it as a tribal label, or an insult, or a shorthand label for a particular package of policies peculiar to a certain type of North American politician. I don't think you mean it the way I would use it - referring to a political philosophy which prizes individual liberty and human rights, whose best-known exponent was John Stuart Mill. As a Brit living in Canada, I have repeatedly heard this claim about the CBC from rightwingers and I think it is total nonsense. Certainly the CBC doesn't parrot absolutely everything that the rightwing establishment says. Certainly it doesn't spew out the unthinking stream of pet nostrums that some of the independent radio stations do. But even so, it seems to me that its bias tends to be towards whoever is in government at the time, and at the moment that is a rather arrogant bunch of rightwingers. We keep having news features about the humanitarian work being done by some of the Canadian military in Afghanistan, but no real coverage of what others of the same army are doing to Afghan villages when in warfighting mode. A few weeks ago we had a programme about the Canadian involvement in WW1, which focussed on the courage of ordinary soldiers (which is OK by me as far as it goes) and the patriotic importance of the war (which leaves me asking very negative questions), but downplayed the misery and the routine agony and the pointlessness of that particular conflict. Yesterday the coverage of John Baird's miserably inadequate response to climate change included several interviews with representatives of big oil but I saw none with environmentalists or even with serious climate scientists. And whenever any government minister is interviewed, they are treated with such deference that I cringe with embarrassment. And that brings me to what I think is the real difference between the best northern European media and the best current North American media: the Europeans want to research stories, not just regurgitate what the government says. They are able and willing to challenge government and other centres of power - indeed they see this as their job. I see this as a sign of a vibrant, open, democratic society: I am very sad that I don't see it so much in Canada, and that from the reports I hear it is virtually absent in the US. In Britain some 12 years ago, BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman (on the flagship Newsnight programme) asked the then Home Secretary the same question 13 times because he didn't get a straight answer - Paxman won a media prize for that interview, and the politician in question never quite recovered from it in the public consciousness. How many north american journalists would (a) have the guts to do that, (b) be permitted by their bosses, (c) even be able to get that close that long to a senior cabinet minister? Mark

Posted by: markbp | April 28, 2007 8:17 AM

Just chiming in for a second on my own piece (if that's permitted). :) Thanks for all the comments. One additional thing is that I don't think I am arguing that "free and independent" equals "agress with me" (although - like all of us - I obviously will favor sources that look more like what I think). I argue that dissenting voices existed and were not allowed, and that there was a filter (and public blindness) in the US that comparison to the international press makes clear. There was clearly more than one side to the story, even back in 2002, but we rarely heard it here. Underneath this for me is an assumption that there is something called truth. It is not that those "liberal" Europeans or Canadians were just spouting off nonsense in 2003. The proof is in the pudding. The bottom line is that what the American public was told was untrue, and even many good old Republicans and "right-wingers" have conceded that now (and those who haven't, I'd argue, are protecing interests). We were lied to as a public. The case for war peddled to us and the international community was false and fabricated. That is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a truth issue. I would not accept that from a Democrat or Republican. We as a nation shouldn't.

Posted by: Bob | April 28, 2007 2:39 PM

You are just finding this out? NBC-CBS-ABC have done this for decades...Wake up and small the coffee - you're not in Kansas anymore. Moderatlad No, Moderatelad, I am not just finding that out. I knew it in the lead up to the war and did not support the war. I find this comment of yours consistent with the body of your comments- dismally unenlightening.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | April 28, 2007 3:24 PM

I should add, not because I argree with the statement.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2007 6:25 PM

Bob is right that this is a truth issue, and the press carries its share of the blame. I don't think, as somebody suggested, that things were just as bad in 1991 and 1999 (although, for the record, I didn't support either of those wars either). In 2002-03, there was still a lingering sense of unreality in the wake of 9/11, and the administration cynicaly took advantage of it, as George Tenet's book has once again made clear, to sell us on a preconceived plan that took little account of inconvenient truth. I don't know what it would have taken to stop them, but neither a state-run press, beholden to the government, or a free enterprise press, beholden to public opinion, had much of a chance.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2007 7:05 PM

I opposed the war from the beginning. Despite the press coverage, I was still able to find enough information to know that there were no weapons of mass destruction or any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and to be able to predict the disastrous course of the war and the current quagmire. Another Anonymous That is a very valid point. I don't think you can make the press "not-for-profit" as Butch would suggest because they are always going to need funding from some source and will on some level be beholden to that source. The American people are to blame. They do not demand intellectual honesty from their politicians and serious investigative reporting from the press. We get what we demand from our politicians and our press. The ensuing result speaks for itself.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | April 28, 2007 7:12 PM

Hello ... The Bush administration knew Iraq had W M D ; Because we gave them to Saddam in order to use the Chem. & Bio weapons on Iran which he did. But then he used them on the kurds and others after a failed attempt on his life; hence the charges and his death penalty sentence.This was done back in the Reagan era remember Iran / Contra of which was a separate cia plot to supply our ally Saddam Hussein in order for him to harrass Iran because of the captive situation (after the fact). at the same time we were supplying Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Mujahadin to fight the Russian invaders there. And in retrospect Ho Chi Minh was our Go To Guy in Indo China fighting the Japanese during WW2; of course we ended up fighting him in Viet Nam. SOME FOREIGN POLICY THE U S HAS ????? WILL WE EVER LEARN THAT DIPLOMACY SHOULD BE THROUGHLY EXHAUSTED BEFORE Bombing and Firing Bullets!!!

Posted by: Deno Reno | April 28, 2007 8:45 PM

Butch would suggest because they are always going to need funding from some source and will on some level be beholden to that source. Sarasota I gave the source of funding, go back and read closer. Everyone knows the press is manipulated, of course it is. Lets all talk about how we understand the past and pat ourselves on the back. How do we structure a change for the future? Because we the people own the airwaves we can influence that, TV TV TV. Forget newspapers and the Internet, they are such different questions.

Posted by: butch | April 28, 2007 8:55 PM

Excuse me, Bob Francis

Posted by: butch | April 28, 2007 9:10 PM

WILL WE EVER LEARN THAT DIPLOMACY SHOULD BE THROUGHLY EXHAUSTED BEFORE Bombing and Firing Bullets!!! Deno Reno
Sadly Deno, notwithstanding the fact that you give a history about how we aided Sadam Hussein, many will not accept this version of events. It is either because it is too hard to accept that your leaders are criminals who were complicit with Saddam OR they are so callous and hardened that they don't care. They see the splinter in their brother's eye but ignore the plank in their own eye.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | April 28, 2007 10:24 PM

Sarasotakid, Thank God for the European press. Except they ignored Oil for Food corruption, which crippled the UN sanctions regime and rendered useless the one tool we had for removing Hussein peacefully. Oh, and large chunks of it knuckled under to Islamist chuckleheads in the wake of the Danish Cartoon fiasco. Look, I admire Europe, but you're dreaming if you think that the European media is inerrant. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2007 10:51 PM

Sarasotakid | 04.28.07 - 12:20 am | #
tie this into some sort of Clintonian intrigue Not sure that Moyers even referenced the Clintons - but if he did it will be interesting to see what he has to say.
The 'Clinton's' can't be wrong on everything, after all a dead clock is correct twice a day. (tee hee) Have a great day .

Posted by: moderatelad | April 29, 2007 2:38 AM

I'd like to suggest that this step 4 process is a vital task for a nation in addiction. And if the church has any political role it is surely to take some leadership in this task. Bob's article is part of this process, and I hope it won't stop here. Having myself been in several recovery programs since 1983, I think you've got something there. What we've seen over the past couple of decades is a culture of dishonesty that needs to be addressed and dealt with.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2007 3:29 AM

Further the TV "News Department" must be funded by a percentage of gross sales of the network. With such a system the News Department will not care if anyone watches their show except pride in a job well done. Butch I agree with you. I am sick of biased news but I don't really see how your approach will be that different from the existing system. It may put more distance between advertisers and the news people but ultimately the funding is coming from advertising proceeds- that is what comprises the gross sales of the networks. Hence if certain advertisers do not like a type of news reporting content, then what is to stop them from pulling back from that particular network? I think that the problem is cultural. America does not foster enough critical thought among the general population. Look how we teach history in our public schools. Raw facts and figures. Little interpretation, debate and argument about the underlying causes in historical shifts. Until the American mind begins to think critically, we will consume whatever we're fed. If you doubt what I'm saying just look at the 2000 elections. The guy who won the popular vote lost the election. In Europe that would have caused mass protest seeking a change to the undemocratic electoral college. In the United States, we were passive and more concerned with our own individual comfort. Sadly enough, we're collectively getting what we collectively deserve.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | April 29, 2007 2:22 PM

To even the consider the voices of the Europeans as anything but apathists is disregarding reality. Europeans do not care where they get there coffee, their clothing or anything else that makes "THEIR" lives better. They care nothing for the suffering of the poor. They care nothing about the slavery that drives their products from reaching Europe, they care nothing for Islamic genocide anywhere. That Americans do not listen, or care about Europeans opinions about what is right and what is wrong,is for the better of mankind. Europeans have so many logs in their own eyes, they are not only blind, but are subservient to the lead of tyrants and murderers. As long as they can be comfy in their own secular apartment dwellings, they care nothing about anything anywhere. They have been against the United States for so long, we should just consider them part of the Islamic-Jihadist movement. Seeing the growth of Islam in Europe, that is reality.

Posted by: Donny | April 29, 2007 2:51 PM

sarasotakid wrote: But somehow their press was able to see through the lies that led up to the war. Why is that? Just curious: does anyone have an example of a mainstream European paper, something on the order of Le Monde or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishing an article prior to the Iraq invasion in which they clearly draw the conclusion that there are no WMDs in Iraq? I see it frequently asserted that the European press got this right. Maybe they did, but I'd like to see the proof of that first. And if they did, reading the actual articles would be the first place to look for clues as to why. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 29, 2007 7:45 PM

God's politics, written by a group claiming Christian identity, makes responding in a Christian way appropriate. Of course, since there is no difference between a Progressive and a Secular Humanist (no matter what they call thmselves), I can understand why the Leftist is confused. Relativism is more a mental illness than anything else. Europeans have shown a great lack of concern for where their "stuff" comes from. That is why the sex slave trade exists so openly in Europe. Even Islam (which provides a great amounts of slaves) will not change that when Muslims take over power of European countries, for awhile anyway. I have my bets secure that Europeans will disregard even Muslim ideas of morality. L'etranger, Let me be straighten out my "secular apartment" statement. Godless people usually end up with a civilization like that of European countries. White paint on the outside, and decaying matter on the inside. Progressives and Europeans are now (again) more like Nero and Hadrian than Paul or Peter. Same European hatred towards Christ as well. The Godly households of America, are the ones raising their children well, staying married to their oposite sex spouses, not promoting sin as OK, and sending themselves and money all over the world to help the poor and suffering. The Progessives will rant and rave in safe little parades in big cities, and do nothing about real suffering worldwide. Otherwise they would tell Islam what they tell Christians but ten times more valid. Like the Europeans they want to become, Progressives want to force the rest of us to become like them as well.
Notice that "diversity and tolerance" are non existant to a Leftist. ALL most be like them or suffer the slings and arrows of epithets, accusation, shouting and outlawing. Sounding of course very much like the haughty Sodomites of the past. It is easier to label me a troll, than to deal with the fair comparison of Progressive behaviors and actions to the evils warned about in the New Testament. It is like Peter, James, Jude and John are still listening to Christ Jesus and reporting to us His preaching the Gospel about the very things Progressives do, that He is warning us to stay away from. The New Testament is not a difficult read. It does not support Progressive ideology and theology. It is not my fault if that is the case.

Posted by: Donny | April 29, 2007 8:37 PM

Hi Wolverine - re: Euro papers on WMD - I think the Independent in the UK did argue this point - and the Indy is a pretty mainstream (although I don't like it much!) I'll try and look up a source. As to why - I do have some sympathy to the complaints of Anti-Americanism in Europeans it does exist to some extent and Fisk - the Independent's journalist who made this position is certainly a fairly obnoxious anti-American. There are also confirmed Atlanticists (such as myself) who get frustrated with rather ill-thought through foreign policy, and what sometimes seems a rather condescending tone based on a set of mistruths or ignorances (hence my rather ungracious response to Donny earlier). It's important not to confuse the two I think. You might find this link interesting on the whole vexed subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6592479.stm. Blessings

Posted by: l'etranger | April 29, 2007 9:41 PM

First off, there is no such thing as a perfectly free and independent press, if by that you mean, a press that is perfectly insulated from economic and political pressures. Wolverine It is all relative, what can we do to reduce undo influence? Bring your intellect to improving the situation?

Posted by: butch | April 29, 2007 10:13 PM

Watched the tape of the Moyers special and you to give them credit for parsing the english language! It is going to take a few viewings of this to totally digest it to say the least. As for the question 'Can You Help Me Find the Free and Independent Press?' The short answer is 'Not On PBS.' Have a great week... .

Posted by: moderatelad | April 30, 2007 1:03 AM

butch | Homepage | 04.29.07 - 9:09 pm | #
Can you be more specific? I will try to be in a few days - I would like to watch it again so that I understand what Mr. Bill and others were trying to communicate. Blessings - .

Posted by: moderatelad | April 30, 2007 4:50 AM

God has revealed to me that "Donny" is Pat Robertson in drag. Canuckelhead I like it, such serious matters it is hard to laugh! Only a canuckelhead would read Donny?

Posted by: butch | April 30, 2007 7:23 AM

There still remians the fact that the Left (Secular Humanism) rules the media in the Western world, the Communists in the Latin (and Chinese) world and the Islamic Jihadists in the Muslim world (which includes a large slice of Europe). And that Progressive ideology and theology is a different belief system Gospel (more akin to the above), than the one set forth by those following the faith delivered only once to the saints. It's no wonder the world is the way it is.

Posted by: Donny | April 30, 2007 2:00 PM

It's no wonder the world is the way it is. Donny
Donny what do you want to do about it specificly?

Posted by: butch | April 30, 2007 5:47 PM

Butch, Things were not this bad when prayer in public school was not a hate crime or tagged with the political neologism "homophobia."
I wish Christians were allowed to challenge liars and not be thought of as the purveyors of falsehoods. Why claim to be a Christian and edit and alter the New Testament for Liberal Democrat politics? The two things are mutually exclusive. Why isn't it OK for Christians to point out the wrong in evil people? Jesus prayed, and He taught His followers how to pray. (He also taught that marriage was a man and a woman. For those that say he never talked about proper sexuality.) His disciples writing in the New Testament were following Christ Jesus, not the Zogby polls.
Etc., etc., etc.. The way things are today prove that the demonic forces have not changed thier modus operandi. For example, Nero (and later Hadrian) would not be a conservative "back in their day," and wouldn't have been today. They would be called Progressives for their actions today. Look at what Elton John is saying today. Hmmm. Certain kinds of people think he is a hero. Read Michael Swift's little demonic prophecy as well. http://fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html There is nothing satirical about evil. Things don't change in the realm of evil and good. Time is a created thing, and behaviors do not change much. Look at the hysterical hatred meted out to those that will not promote licentiousness. They are called trolls and worse. Jesus was not executed for being politically correct. He was crucified for pointing out the error in religious hypocrites, and he was found guilty of breaking Roman law. Jim Wallis puts on the nice looking attire and attitude of Progressive ideology and theology, but it is a different Gospel.
Christians today face the Secular Humanist agenda the exact same way they faced the Roman perversions of hedonism, paganism and the same totalitarianism. Liberals and Progessive ideology and theology do not allow for dissent. So very reminiscent of the haughty people of Sodom to being challenged. Not one thing different from evil of yesterday, except the media in which news travels.

Posted by: Donny | April 30, 2007 9:06 PM

Yes, and we have groups like Sojourners who are joining the mass media in anointing "leaders" who favor increasing our bloated military budget, abortion and the death penalty. Like the mass media, they largely ignore prophetic voices who stand for life like independent Presidential candidate Joe Schriner. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Sojourners has decided to be part of the problem.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | May 1, 2007 2:17 AM