NY Times largely mum on Moyers special about media's role in spreading prewar falsehoods
On the April 25 edition of the Public Broadcasting Service's Bill Moyers Journal, host Bill Moyers presented a 90-minute-long documentary special, Buying the War," that examined how the media "largely surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with our government in marching to war" in Iraq. The film extensively reported on the role New York Times reporters and columnists played in contributing to the "drumbeat" of war. However, the documentary has not been either reviewed or mentioned in the Times itself, aside from a two-sentence blurb that appeared in the print newspaper's television listings.
By contrast, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post all ran reviews of the Moyers documentary. The Post -- whose editorials in favor of the invasion and front-page coverage of Bush administration prewar claims were extensively highlighted by Moyers -- published two articles on the special: a preview of the documentary and a review of it. On April 25, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales reviewed the film, calling it "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year ... as disheartening as it is compelling." Shales further observed: "The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls 'the marketing group' -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?"
While the documentary cast a critical eye on most of the mainstream press, Moyers especially noted The New York Times' role in credulously reporting administration claims about Iraq's WMD program, particularly focusing on former Times reporter Judith Miller. Moyers noted that, before the invasion, "Miller would write six prominent stories based on" the "testimony" of Iraqi defectors, whose stories were later found to be exaggerated or fictional. Miller relied heavily on Ahmed Chalabi -- then an Iraqi exile and head of the Iraqi National Congress -- who put her in touch with other defectors who, according to Moyers, "told Miller the Iraqis had hidden chemical and biological weapons ... [r]ight under [Saddam Hussein's] 'presidential sites.' " Moyers reported that the "story spread far and wide," opening floodgates for other Iraqi defectors to peddle misinformation to the U.S. media.
Moyers highlighted another front-page Times article, to which Miller contributed, that helped the Bush administration make the case that Saddam "had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed [aluminum] tubes," a claim that later turned out to be false. Moyers used this story to demonstrate how administration officials would manipulate the media by "plant[ing] a dramatic story," then appearing on news talk shows and "point[ing]" to the story they had leaked to confirm their argument, thus creating a "circular, self-confirming leak":
MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that [Vice President Dick] Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?
TIM RUSSERT (NBC News Washington bureau chief and host of NBC's Meet the Press): I don't know. The New York Times is a better judge of that than I am.
MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?
RUSSERT: No, no. I mean --
MOYERS: The -- the Cheney office didn't make any -- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?
RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't -- I don't have the -- this is, you know, on Meet the Press, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in The New York Times.
MOYERS: Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in The New York Times and then the vice president comes on your show and points to The New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and [New York Times reporter] Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of The New York Times. When Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.
Buying the War also highlighted The Washington Post's prominent coverage of the Bush administration's prewar claims, while simultaneously burying stories that cast doubt on the administration's assertions. Moyers also noted that "in the six months leading up to the invasion The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times." But while two Post staffers -- media critic Howard Kurtz and staff writer Walter Pincus -- agreed to be interviewed for Moyers' program, three Times staffers Moyers sought to interview -- Miller and columnists Thomas Friedman and William Safire, both of whom advocated for the war -- all declined to be interviewed. In fact, aside from file footage, no one from the Times appeared on air.
Media Matters for America found that, in the past two months, the only coverage The New York Times devoted to the special was a two-line mention in the April 25 edition of the paper's Arts & Entertainment section, Page 9, which noted: "The season premiere of 'Bill Moyers Journal' examines the proposition that the news media were complicit in pushing the United States into the war in Iraq. Dan Rather, Tim Russert and Bob Simon appear in interviews."
Shame is mighty muzzle.
Someone needs to nominate those Knight-Ridder folks for a Pulitzer.
Or two.
Agreed; I would wager that the NYTimes will not answer, although I think they've been the most critical of Bush of any of the major national newspapers.
"Agreed; I would wager that the NYTimes will not answer, although I think they've been the most critical of Bush of any of the major national newspapers."
-----
Actually, they haven't. Their opinion pages ignore what they've printed in their own news pages. News is not critical or uncritical of an administration, unless that news organization does nothing but publish White House press releases unedited.
The part that has not been critical of the Administration is the Editorial page (not the op-ed page, the page upon which the NYT editors publish their own opinions). That section has been full of some of the most fawning, obsequious kowtowing to the W maladministration yet.
Well, aren't we really talking about op-ed then? I mean, if we talk about paper bias, let's talk about what the editors right. Papers really have a committment to present both sides on the editorial page, so I don't see why we're holding them as some sort of conservative-biased propoganda outlet.
Bleh, "write."
Papers have an obligation to print both sides in the news but not in the editorial section. That's the only place they should express opinion....and that's all it is. Mostly always conservative, these days, but that's their right.
surely you are not implying that they are not a conservative-biased propaganda outlet..
This is a great documentary. I highly recommend it. Of course, the Republicons will dismiss it as "liberal propaganda", as they have done with anything which points out the obvious lies of the Bush Administration. Of course to believe that, you must assume that EVERYONE is lying except the Bush administration toadies. How likely is that?
As far as I'm concerned, the case has been made...impeach the bastards.
I agree with you 100%. Bill Moyers is an outstanding journalist and lays down the facts. The GOP spin machine will counter this but I think we are all used to the lies they speak.
I agree. Very good work by Mr. Moyers. One of the last very good journalists.
"in the six months leading up to the invasion The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times."
And they're still doing it, regularly, to their disgrace, on the editorial page. And they continue to dig-up the ever-increasingly difficult-to-find warmongers, like Cheney's daughter (who they deceptively do not identify as such) to continue pounding the war-drums.
I will believe...
As great as Moyers' piece was, I will believe that he and others have really had an impact on the MSM when I see footage of George Tenent flinging the medal Duhhbya gave him over the White House fence.
Hmm...from the early information on his book, perhaps Tenet effectively has done that.
How true. Tenet's book is due out next week, and from what I've heard, it doesn't make the Bushies look too good.
Did anyone else find it interesting that they've announced "treason" charges against an American soldier, just as Moyers' documentary is aired? Probably just a coincidence...yeah...they'd never do anything like that to distract us, would they?
This administration distract us? Of course not ;-)
They also just happend to have a top Al Qaida operative in custody. The News just broke today. Good news is good news I guess.
Wow...did they get the number two man...again?
and again and again and...
This doc makes a lot of folks look bad. Judith Miller being seen in the worst light.
Why not come on and defend yourself? Save any credibilty that you have left?
I predict that the MSM will largely ignore this documentary, just as they did Why We Fight...in fact, just like they've ignored most of the evidence about the Bushies lies leading to the Iraq invasion. For some reason, they seem to consider it a non-story.
The Corporate Media takes two differing tacks, depending upon their view of the Corporate/Repugnant value of the issue: the most blatant lies can be endlessly repeated(1) on every outlet, and resurrected regularly three days after each execution by exposure to truth; the most relevant and compelling truth(2) can be ignored, minimised, and dismissed, even when it is spoken aloud by those who would uphold truth.
Moyers will get the "ignore" version, while the liars work feverishly to find irrelevancies and disputations to introduce as distractions and diminuitions.
(1) Swift Boat Liars' hourly rotation on every network; Cheney's "Iraq plotted 9-11 speeches"
(2) DOJ vs US Attys took TPM more than 2 months to agitate sufficiently to cause WaPo to pick up even a limited version of the story; An Inconvenient Truth - and Gore still under attack by Frontline
It was great stuff... I'm sure PBS's good reputation for this kind of thing can be recovered, after so many years of a Republican House of Representatives trying to destroy it.
I thought Eric Boehlert was very good, and the Journalists from Knight-Ridder also... and Bob Simon was great.
As for what appears in this item, about what little print coverage surrounds the documentary:
The Washington Post 'TV critic' (that sounds like an easy job) is cited as asking...
"Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers ('the marketing group'), or did the outrage of 9/11 make the press more vulnerable to being duped?"
...I didn't read the article from which that question comes, despite there being a link to it, but the question is enough for me, because of how innocent it reads (and I say 'innocent', because I don't really have a better word... I've never been very sharp as to what 'obtuse' is supposed to mean... I guess it to mean "dumb, to the extent of actually refusing to understand"... but I'm not sure)...
So that's an actual question, that someone is so innocent they need to ask it, like they didn't already know the answer...
"Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers ('the marketing group'), or did the outrage of 9/11 make the press more vulnerable to being duped?"
...and what's up with the "or"?
I always saw it as BOTH the "marketing group's" work, AND the American People's trauma after 9/11 (many members of the press included) as "benefitting" the Bush administration's scheme of lies greed and death in Iraq...
...it seems ridiculous to think it must be one OR the other, when it's obvious BOTH things were worked, at the same time.
And it seems a bit too innocent for anyone to credibly ask the question anyway, at this stage...
...as though they were so dumb, and were actually refusing to understand.
How right you are. The evidence has been there all along. Remember the book about Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty? It came out in early 2004, and stated that the Bush team wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. O'Neill was dismissed as a "disgruntled employee". Remember Karen Kwaitkowsky? She worked in the Pentagon and stated unequivocally that the prewar intelligence was cherry picked. She was dismissed as a crackpot.
How much evidence can they ignore?
The NY TImes won't comment on the documentary, for one main reason.
Their 'star" reporter did nothing but repeat the crap from Bush, Cheney, Feith, etc, and her "source," one of Ahmad (so corrupt he stinks on ice) Chalabi's goons, most notably the liar "Curveball."
I especially like the part where Cheney's office leaks a fake story to the NYT, then Cheney tells the same lie on Tim Russert's show, using the NYT story to back it up. These guys are fairly accomplished liars. Goebbels would have been proud.
Russert was skewered by Moyers on that line. Russert complains that no one called him to tell him the truth about how Cheney was playing Russert as the sucker. They then cut to Simon, who laughs and says he called a guy named Bear.
Apparently if you have information on the WH lies, you have to call Russert because he is just too damned lazy to hunt out the truth on his own.
If one had the access (Moyers might have) to call Mr. Russert, and one had the facts all in order, laid them out, and offered then to answer questions - one would finally conclude that Mr. Russert is in fact the nearly vacant mouthpiece he is so often represented here at MMFA to be.
Able to mimic the language of Corporate Media, but displaying exactly the comprehension of a myna; indeed, insulated by Corporate Media from any adverse consequence of his empty parroting of Corporate Media lies; there is simply none of the anguish which should in sentient beings, accompany one's betrayal of trust, one's deceit, one's lies.
Exactly so. Great post.
Hey now, Maureen Dowd wrote a snarky column calling the guy 'greasball". I'm sure that makes up for all the other mistakes.
Interesting that this story is getting so few comments. Where are our conservative friends on this one? Maybe it's just me, but I think the distortion of prewar intelligence is the biggest story of the decade, or should be. From all indications, it may be the biggest crime perpetrated by our government officials since Watergate...and nobody died from Watergate.
Why did we invade Iraq? It obvously had nothing to do with the reasons they stated. Why does Bush refuse to pull our troops out? Why are we building permanent bases there? What happened to that $9 Billion dollars? Some people still consider that a lot of money, you know.
So many questions, so little curiosity from the MSM. Are they just embarassed because they were so easily fooled, or is there something more sinister going on here?
That should be $9billion of OURS, plus almost $12billion Iraqi money entrusted to the CPA; all mysteriously unaccountable.
Let us not forget the $2.3-2.7 trillion that was announced as "unaccouted for" by Rummy on 9/10/01. Whatever happened to that investigation?
If they began to ask questions, they won't get invited to the annual White House Press dinner. They won't get to hobnob with the rich and famous. They won't get huge salaries from their corporate massahs for selling the official BS. They might actually have to work for a living, instead of preening themselves in front of tv cameras and selling total garbage to the American people.
Tenet is coming out with a book. In it he is claiming that his use of the phrase 'slam dunk' was twisted by Cheney. What Tenet meant was it would be a slam dunk to sell the war on the public. The way Cheney twisted it was by saying Tenet used slam dunk to mean evidence of WMD's.
I have to say the most important thing I heard in Moyers' show was Donohue talking about how her was required to have two "conservative" guests for every one "liberal" guest. Also how corporate sponsers and the administration were putting pressure on the "higher ups" if they didn't like wha tthey were hearing. Did I miss the part where we cancelled the whole freedom of the press thing?
I once had a friend who said of his business: (It's)...like a good hobby, gone bad." Kind of like Bill Moyers, who has the journalistic credibility like unto other 'greats' like Dan Rather. Rather is a better journalist than Moyers, and Rather is a proven liar.
Moyer is a hatchet man. There is a difference between reporting and spin. Moyers can't recognize it. It was a great day for truth when he 'retired,' and its too bad that anyone would continue to give him a forum.
The only people who believe him have to want to really badly.
You, sir, are a moron. Thanks for playing. Run along now.
Bill Moyers has won more than 30 Emmy's Nine Peabodies (real ones not figments of his imagination like O'falalfels) and three Polk awards. Clearly he DOES have both respect and credibility of his peers and in the journalistic community. Some guy on a website claims he has none. Hmmmm. Let me see, who has more credibility HERE. Some guy who obviously doesnt know what he is talking about OR his journalistic peers. I want a judges ruling on that one. Sorry the judges have ruled you are delusional. Please increase your medication if you want to continue playing.
Would that be the same journalistic peers that call Broder a 'Titan?' I'm old enough to remember when Moyers had some credibility, and some integrity. But that was a long time ago.
Why, because he reported something that didn't fit with your worldview? Isn't that, after all, the definition of "liberal media"? Objective reporting that reveals something embarrasing to the right is what has become, after years of right-wing droning, a "liberal bias".
I watched BUYING THE WAR and I was not surprised by anything that was said because I have heard and read those same things from several other sources, and in some cases have personally witnessed these events. His analysis was thorough, and his questioning pointed and provocative.
Today, I also watched last night's second installment in this series. The first half was an interview with Jon Stewart and showed Stewart to be a very astute and rational person and not just a comic genius. The second half was an interview with Josh Micah Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com. If you are in any way confused about the US Attorney scandal, this piece will clear everything up for you. They make it perfectly clear why this IS NOT a phony scandal, or a scandal without a crime. Even if Gonzales quits, this needs to be dragged out for all the world to see how corrupt this administration has really become. Of all the things bush/cheney (lowercase intentional) have done that warrant impeachment, this is the most cut and dried in my opinion.
Hey, don't use confusing words like "worldview". Somehow, not only the word, but the very concept, wast lost in the mass of emails Rove and crew are trying to hide.
Now the troll will have to check back with his manager, to see if "worldview" is something trolls are supposed to have, and what how trolls are supposed respond to those who raise the issue.
Lets go over that list AGAIN. More than 30 emmys REAL Peabodies and three Polk awards. I would say that virtually the entire industry would say he had credibility. He didnt lose any because you dont LIKE the fact he reports facts and reality, which of course wingnuts HATE facts and reality, that isnt Moyers fault. This isnt your call. Comparing what SOME journalists say to the PLETHORA of industry awards wont cut it. You are making a fool out of yourself. Its about like saying Chomsky is a moron even though he has won the NOBEL PRIZE for science because you dont agree with his politics. YOUR biases dont define reality. Here on Planet Earth Moyers has TONS of credibility. Your delusional ranting on an internet message board cannot change that.
The left's hatred for Bush is irrational. Just b/c Mr. Moyer shares the left's hatred of the values of America does not make him truthful. Just b/c you've read a lie elsewhere doesn't mean it's not a lie. Just b/c you travel in your own intellectual circle doesn't mean that circle accurately describes reality.
For twenty years Churchill stood mostly alone against the consensus that Germany posed no threat to freedom. He was right and the consensus opinion was dead wrong. My point is not to mock you or to be condescending toward you. Just be aware that Moyers is a turncoat to the values he once held, and should still hold, and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He will act as though he shares your values while it is convenient for him to do so.
Got any proof that those on the left hate American values?
Got any proof that Moyers agrees with those on the left?
I thought not.
OK you have shown yourself to be a COMPLETE MORON by passing on MINDLESS rightwing talking point number three that lefties hate American values. You have to be literally braindead to take such moronity seriously. Clearly you are a braindead moron. It is YOU that clearly hate American values. Like TRUTH, REALITY, and dissenting against an adminstration for such trifles as LYING us into a war among many other major stupidities. You began with MINDLESS moron talking point nuber two. The left has an irrational hatred of Bush. It is also flat out stupid. I dont hate Bush he is not my neighbor or brother-in-law. I despise the things he is doing in MY name and with MY tax dollars. He WORKS for the American people and I have every RIGHT, no OBLIGATION to say when I think he is doing a sucky job. Theodore Roosevelt said to say there must be no criticism of a President, that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but also morally treasonable to the American public. I say you should STOP being unpatriotic servile and morally treasonable. Not to mention such a moron.
"the left's hatred for bush is irrational" uh no, it's based on mr. bush's irrational and stubborn policies.
It's irrational to hate a war criminal, a mass murderer, a torturer, a liar, and a theif? What species are you? Adain o orch?
edrossinoelwein9669Moyer is a hatchet man. There is a difference between reporting and spin. Moyers can't recognize it. It was a great day for truth when he 'retired,' and its too bad that anyone would continue to give him a forum. The only people who believe him have to want to really badly. First the Iraq War and now the News Wars! Wonder who will win?
Bill Moyer, Knight Ridder and a few online news outlets are outnumbered by the likes of FAUX NOISE and all the other TV, newspaper publishers, editors, and reporters; all of the pundits and right wing radio talkers who have and continue to enable the current administration in this unholy war.
I found the following article on the “Editors and Publisher” web site. I am more apt to believe their take on Bill Moyer and the PBS special than you sir. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260The Hot Topics at Overseas Press Club Awards http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003577589
I saw the show and was impressed. It is a marvel that Moyers can still have a voice on PBS. The show clearly demonstrated that the media's money dependency (ads, desire to be part of mainstream politics, patriotism/jingoism, maintaining an inside track with its government sources) limits its independence. Unlike Moyers, most media pundits are just money makers for their outfits.
As to Ed Rossin Oel Wein:
I think his assertion that Moyers speaks from an engaged point of view is accurate. We shouldn't pretend that commitments to values are absent in his reporting and that the description of Moyer's piece as "objective truth" is sufficient for us to hurl back as refutation at Ed.
The real battle lies in the divergent commitments people on the left and right have made. For either to claim they have the truth is not useful. One simply goes on defending the values one stands for based on principles that make sense and that ought to be universalized. Calling the opponent's rethorical tricks for what they are is vital, but the left uses them as well.
Each side can rationalize its position as needed. If one were guided by the adage that each person is entitled to be wrong in her opinion but no one is entitled to be wrong in her facts, we will have made some progress. Leaving aside the interesting question of defining those two terms.
I believe that most of us have been raised to believe that differences of opinion in a democratic country are resolved by majority rule. Obviously that did not work regarding the civil war. Perhaps some core issues that are being crystallized during this time will likewise not be amenable to democratic solutions. The adage that just because there exists a serious problem (our culture war) does not mean that there is a solution (a tolreable democratic one). Opinions are governed by vested interests that don't disappear by more talking.
Jefferson did say something about blood watering the tree of patriotism and a revolution every 19 years would be a good thing and we shouldn't allow ourselves be ruled by the hands of the dead.
I think it is one of the wrongheaded ideas of liberals who believe that through education the idiots on the right can be made to see. They can see just fine, but they want a different future, and they value a different past. Intelligence and education do not inevitably lead to an enlightened point of view. Liberals hope for open-ended emancipation of the individual with no agreed cultural, economic, etc, telos, guided by the ethos that Goethe laid out: nothing human is foreign to me; conservatives hope for the adoption of the same fixed beliefs by everyone resulting in a blissful end state where everyone has found the truth.
The only thing that education and intelligence can reliably achieve is the recognition that human beings can make as many choices as there are people, and that live and let live are more useful for the common weal than contriving the same way of life for everyone. The left can feel its way to that point, the right is scared because it would have to abandon the absolutism that sustains it.
Marxists used to be criticised for their mechanistic view of history as following predictable stages and resulting in a predicable future. To arrive at that conclusion the critics ignored large amounts of Marx's ideas that show he wanted the individual's complete emancipation and freedom. I believe that conservatives are suffering from a mechanistic view of history as having inevitably led to the current dominance of christian capitalism beyond which no improvements or changes are possible or necessary. Their idea of the freedom of the individual culminates in letting us choose which advertiser's jingle to act on when spending our money to patriotically support the economy of the empire.
Ed, and Rove, and Cheney and similar scum will continue to run the show until we return to real education that leaves all politicans behind and empowers each child to be capable of defining and pursuing its own path, not as a trained monkey dancing to standardized test questions to reach the telos of christian capitalism, but as a fearless explorer of the world who can remake the world.
Well, this is getting too ranty.