Limbaugh vs. Moyers

Bill Moyers says that journalists have a responsibility to question those in power.

Rush Limbaugh, speaking for the economic and political elites that currently occupy positions of authority, responds by charging that Moyers is "insane."

A debate has opened regarding the role of reporting in George W. Bush's America. But this debate is about a great deal more than one president or one moment in history. At the most fundamental level, it is about whether the American experiment as imagined by the most visionary of its founders can long endure.

Moyers set the stage at the National Conference for Media Reform last week, where he delivered a call for the redemption of American journalism. Though he was appearing less than a week after it had been revealed that the Bush administration ally who chairs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had waged a secret campaign to drive him off the air, the former host of PBS's "NOW" program was calm and collected. The winner of thirty Emmy Awards reflected upon his own work and that of his colleagues on "NOW." But his real purpose was to defend the craft of journalism against the battering it has taken from those who believe reporters should be little more than stenographers to power. At a time when too many prominent journalists have accepted the diminished standards that their critics would impose upon them, Moyers raged against the dying of the light -- not so much for himself as for the Republic that will not stand without a free, skeptical and courageous press.

"We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable," Moyers explained to the 2,300 journalists, academics and activists who had gathered in St. Louis.

Moyers proceeded to describe the behind-the-scenes pressure that CPB board chair Ken Tomlinson and other White House allies exerted in a campaign to get the NOW team to trim its sails. The "crime" committed by Moyers and his crew was not one of liberal bias, as became evident when the former host of the program described the ideological diversity of the guests on NOW, read a letter praising the show from conservative Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, and recalled the support it had received from the widow of a New York City firefighter who died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Rather, Moyers explained, "One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news."

The former White House aide, newspaper publisher, author and documentary filmmaker committed the cardinal sin of the contemporary moment: he practiced the craft of journalism as the authors of the "freedom of the press" protection in the Bill of Rights intended -- without fear or favor, unbought and unbossed, and in the service of the public interest rather than the private demands of the economically and politically powerful. Such trangressions are punished as severely in George W. Bush's America as they were in the America that was ruled by another, equally regal George 230 years ago. And just as King George III had henchmen who attacked the rebels against his rule, so the contemporary King George has his Tories. Chief among them is Limbaugh, the bombastic radio personality whose microphone is always at the ready for a denunciation of those who dare suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

No one polices the discourse more aggressively than Limbaugh.

So when word got out that Moyers was telling the American people that they should expect more from their media than a slurry of celebrity gossip and propaganda, there was hell to pay.

Typically, Limbaugh did not attack the substance of Moyers's remarks. Rather, the viscount of viciousness devoted a substantial portion of his nationally-syndicated radio program Thursday to claiming that Moyers had come "unhinged" and that, "The things coming out of his mouth today are literally insane." The most self-absorbed personality in America media -- who regularly declares that he's got "talent on loan from God" and says, "I'm doing what I was born to do. That's host. You're doing what you were born to do. That's listen." -- even went so far as to suggest that Moyers had a messiah complex.

So agitated was Limbaugh that he attacked another speaker at the media-reform conference, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley -- in Limbaugh parlance, "this Linda Foley babe" -- for expressing concern about the killing of journalists in Iraq. And, for good measure, he closed off his rant by claiming that the millions of Americans who are demanding a more civic and democratic media are "off their rockers" and dismissing the notion of reforming the media as "an oxymoron."

It would be easy to counter Limbaugh by climbing down into the gutter of character assassination and recycled Washington spin with the nation's No. 1 peddler of those commodities. Whole books been written regarding Limbaugh's personal and professional foibles.

But this is not about Limbaugh. After all, it's not as if he speaks for himself. When the economic and political elites of the nation says "Jump!" Limbaugh response has always been an enthusiastic, "How high?" And never does he jump higher or quicker than when he is going for the throat of someone who has committed the sin of telling the American people that there is more to a broadcast than talking points and cheerleading for those who refuse to play fair. Of course, Limbaugh thought Moyers was nuts. Limbaugh has been bending the facts for so long that he, undoubtedly, believes that trying to get them straight is madness.

This places him very much at odds with Moyers, who wants the American people to know that there is a reason why they get so little useful information from their radio programs and the nightly reports on network television.

Thus, the best counter to Limbaugh is not an attack on the radio babbler, but rather a return to the high ground with Moyers.

Let Limbaugh bellow, like the Wizard of Oz when he was trying to keep his machinery hidden. Moyers is pulling the curtain away and telling the American people what is wrong with the "rules of the game" by which so much of today's so-called "journalism" is practiced.

"These 'rules of the game' permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too often simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers, sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin, invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading," Moyers explained last week.

"I decided long ago that this wasn't healthy for democracy. I came to see that 'news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.' In my documentaries -- whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry's long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers -- I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence. This is always hard to do, but it has never been harder than today. Without a trace of irony, the powers-that-be have appropriated the newspeak vernacular of George Orwell's 1984. They give us a program vowing 'No Child Left Behind,' while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged kids. They give us legislation cheerily calling for 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' that give us neither. And that's just for starters."

The difference between Limbaugh and Moyers is as profound as the difference between FOX and PBS. One man plays by the "rules of the game," the other sticks to principle. One man defends a corrupt status quo, the other seeks to expose it. One is a master propagandist, the other wants to break the stranglehold of "The Big Lie." One fears the damage done by the practice of journalism, the other knows that great journalism is the essential element in the making of great nations. One is a Tory who serves his King George, the other is a rebel against the throne.

It is not a fair fight. On one side are Limbaugh and his Tories, with all of their economic and political might. On the other are Moyers and his media reformers, with only the truth -- and the echo of Tom Paine crying across the centuries: "O Ye that love mankind! Ye that dares oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!"

Comments (41)

1. Bravo for your article. Unfortunately, Limbaugh's thearics mean more to his listeners than what he actually says. His words have more meaning to moderates and liberals who realize how insane Limbaugh is. Dicktracy

   Posted by dicktracy at 05/23/2005 @ 11:45am

2. Regardless of Limbaugh's drug-addled histrionics, everyone who is anyone knows wich of these two individuals can be trusted to keep Americans informed.

   Talent on loan from OxyContin

   notorious1

   Posted by Notorious1 at 05/23/2005 @ 12:15pm

3. This is an excellent article and your many points are very well taken.

   As an educator my main concern is the literacy of the American public. One would hope that people would be able to tell the difference between substantiated facts and conjecture. But more and more it appears this is not so. It would be perhaps comforting to think that the Limbaugh crowd are the problem and there is not something more endemic. But people who watch Fox News (and other networks too) fail to read between the lines or challenge journalistic assumptions because they simply do not know how to read up on the issues in question. Now, the argument is that people are too busy and too tired to check up on the veracity of the reporting they are constantly bombarded with. But is it so much to ask for people to be able to readily identify opinion when they hear it?

   I hope there is a greater awareness of our literacy problem. Just because people can read or know how to listen does not mean they know how to process or, for that matter, think.

   Posted by hhemwm at 05/23/2005 @ 12:53pm

4. Is anybody besides me wondering whether Rush, too, is being paid by the Bush administration to spew its propaganda? If so, shouldn't he be exposed for the whore that he is, trying to pass himself off as a "patriot" doing it for love?

   Posted by dalloway at 05/23/2005 @ 2:29pm

5. If you didn't hear Moyers, go to

   http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/16/1329245&mode=thread&tid=25

   It's well worth it

   Posted by golfski at 05/23/2005 @ 4:24pm

6. Thank God for Moyers, Nichols and McChesney. Speaking truth to power is a rotten job, but someone's got to do it. Julie Stroeve, Minneapolis

   Posted by jstroeve at 05/23/2005 @ 4:33pm

7. Rush's and Fox's audience enjoy what's presented to them because it makes them feel better about themselves (or less insecure). The shows target the white working class, and operate as an alterego, that filters and presents information in a way that reinforces a positve self image and a comforting, less ego-threatening view of the world; it makes the listeners feel less ignorant, less powerless and less morally confused. In effect these presentations provide a narcotic that produces euphoria. The intrusion of facts which would break this euphoria is prevented not only by the programmers, but also by the listeners themselves (willful cognitve dissonance), and is made less likely by the listeners' lack of education and the general unavailability of real news in most of the mass media. Also, most of these audience members wouldn't even know where to look for real news in the unlikely event they saw the need to. Unfortunately, most of the media outlets that do publish real news present it between the lines (which takes practice and knowledge to interpret), and tend, either deliberately or unwittingly, to make working class people, particularly the white ones, feel inferior. An example is the NY Times which spits on white working class people, promoting policies that are patently harmful to their interests e.g. free trade or just plain offensive to their sensibilities, e.g. modern art, politically/economically motivated lionization of nonwhite artists/cultures - which drives them 'home' to Fox and Rush, where they feel they're treated with respect.

   To understand the problem, try encouraging and/or watching somebody, particularly a white person, from a blue collar background pick-up and read the NY Times. One or more things tend to happen: 1. they can't read it, because the reading level is too high, 2. they can't read between the lines, so they'll take what's presented at face value, 3. they'll be offended by the cultural stuff, 4. they'll be put-off by the upperclass tone of the paper. The result, most commonly, is that they put the paper down and never read it again, or on rare occasion, they buy into the face value presentation and internalize it as part of an effort to raise their socioeconomic class.

   Sadly, the only thing which could break the spell of these right-wing media outlets over their audience would be the intrusion of hard reality such as an economic catastophe or worse, which undermines the image created and peddled. The collapse of the Nazi or Soviet propaganda machines come to mind.

   Posted by wgilwood at 05/23/2005 @ 4:53pm

8. I love the Limbaugh/Tory juxtaposition. True indeed, he is serving at the discretion of the new "King George." However, it is important to keep in mind that all intelligent Americans already know of Limbaugh's unwavering dedication to far right initiatives. This is a man who truly believes dissent is unpatriotic. Of course he thinks Moyers is crazy. Anything other than what the "Big fat idiot" believes must be crazy. What's scary is that there are still people who give him creedence as a real journalist. Let investigative journalism be reborn. It does wonders for democracy. I think that was Moyer's biggest point. We don't listen to the Fat-man Rightwing Spinster anyway, John.

   Posted by connorlrar at 05/23/2005 @ 6:19pm

9. Like the comments, but, must remind everyone that the movers and shakers behind the neo-con movement are highly educated, intelligent men and women who use Rush,Gordon, Ann and other neo-con pundits very effectively. Do not underestimate the enemy. dicktracy

   Posted by dicktracy at 05/23/2005 @ 6:20pm

10. I really miss Bill Moyers on NOW. I heard his Missouri speech several times and really appreciate him a lot. It would be really great if he were our President. Rush Limbaugh can go shoot-up for all I care and, hopefully, overdose.

    Posted by palindrome at 05/23/2005 @ 6:57pm

11. Bill Moyers is an icon of responsible journalism while Rush Limbaugh is an acknowleged right-wing idiot who spews forth vitriol on everyone who disagrees with him. For Rush to say Moyers has a "messiah complex" is more like him speaking to a mirror.

    Responsible journalism needs to be highlighted and praised in todays "rabid Republican" atmosphere. Telling the truth to the American people is the reponsibility of our "free press". NOTHING should stand in its' way.

    The Bush administration has consistently lied to the people and many in the press have ignored it for fear of repraisal, and with good reason. Bush and company have imposed their view across the board with appointments to every oversight entity possible in the U.S. with dire consequences. The Bush administration has ensured that conservatism has the loudest voice heard for years to come.

    Our job is to voice our opinion at every turn. We must write to the local newpapers and be seen as an answer to the right-wing agenda being probagated. "The Nation" is indespensible in our task. BRAVO "THE NATION".

    Posted by raschana at 05/24/2005 @ 07:10am

12. While I'm hesitant to speak ill of anyone, I cannot resist retelling my favorite joke as it concerns Mr. Limbaugh. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg? One's an over inflated, Nazi gas bag, and the other is a dirigible!

    Posted by dantheboatman at 05/24/2005 @ 2:49pm

13. My oops! It's supposed to read, One's a FLAMING nazi gas bag and the other is a dirigible. Sorry.

    Posted by dantheboatman at 05/24/2005 @ 2:53pm

14. Not a very good article, especially considering its length. You give no specifics as to where Limbaugh attacks Moyers, or on what specific subjects. And you criticize Limbaugh for character assassination by using character assassination? But then you say you shouldn't stoop to what you've already stooped to. Furthermore, the "crime" committed by Moyers was indeed a liberal bias - he would admit that to you himself. The reason the new chairman has decided to balance the news at PBS is because people like me have complained for years that their tax dollars are going to pay for biased news - I don't care which side of the aisle it's on, it is wrong either way. The preferable choices for PBS would be to either 1) stop taking taxpayer dollars and then they can slant the news however they want, 2) get out of the news business altogether - it seems we have enough news channels today, or 3) bring balance to its news, which the new chairman is trying to do.

    One other note: it says here that when posting "Please refrain from ... making personal attacks", and yet, practically every comment on here, and especially the author of this piece, does exactly that. I hate constantly helping out the other side, but then again, I would prefer healthy debate as opposed to what we're getting these days from the left. Hatred, name-calling, and resisting every idea from the other side simply because it is from the other side does not win debates, nor, as you have discovered, win elections. Ideas do - try it sometime.

    Posted by lburwell at 05/24/2005 @ 3:18pm

15. OK, so Limbaugh doesn't like Moyer, and Moyer doesn't like LImbaugh. The liberals like to bronze Moyer as onen of the last remaining free voices in public television, a public television that has many reasons why it should be reformed. Limbaugh has a voice because he has a radio show.

    Posted by Edward Abboud at 05/24/2005 @ 3:54pm

16. The listeners to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity et al, do not listen to nor do they care about facts. Thirty or forty years ago, nobody believed what is happening today was possible. You have to hand it to the republicans, they have done a masterful job. America is too uninformed and the apathy too strong to combat the propaganda machine America faces.

    Posted by wskadavis at 05/25/2005 @ 11:14am

17. Great Article!

    The great American political satirist, Barry Crimmins (www.barrycrimmins.com)over 10-years ago described Rush Limbaugh as "a cheeseburger that sweats" ...

    If Limbaugh and the like truly take over, it is the rest of us that will need the drugs to cope with it ...

    Peace J. Thomas Duffy The Garlic http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/

    Posted by JTD at 05/25/2005 @ 1:07pm

18. It can all turn on a dime. The mob has always been fickle. Rush can be the Voice of the People today, and an odd historical curiousity tomorrow. How to make that change? Find every outlet and every way to talk to working people about their jobs, their debts, their fears, hopes, and ideals.

    We're not against Bush because he's a smug smarmy smirky ignorance-peddling son of privilege (okay, well we *are*) but more importantly because his policies are screwing up the lives of all kinds of people all over the country, and the world. We're not against Rush because he's an abusive hubristic gas-bag (okay, well we *are*) but because he's misleading people, distracting them away from the causes of the difficulties and dangers to their own lives and well-being.

    Moyers has been a resource for helping the already politically-aware, as is The Nation. But Rush is reaching a huge audience that hasn't made the connection between the powers-that-be and the conditions of their own lives. That's the gap that the useless big-media teevee evening news, local and national, isn't filling. That's the missing piece.

    If the people catch wise, it's all over for Rush and company.

    Posted by dryfoo at 05/25/2005 @ 1:21pm

19. To the few remaining bastions of sanity in media (Moyers, Nation, etc.), I beg of you: Please keep reporting the truth, someone needs to!

    From: ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO CENSOR [daysbreak.blogspot.com]: "This case is just another attempt to bully the media into submission so they'll be hesitant to print stories like this (i.e. uncomfortably truthful ones) in the future. Because when they've got false wars to promote, the last thing they need is a pesky press to call them on their bullshit. By undercutting the media and making it out to be the enemy, they hope the public will stop paying attention, allowing them to get away with anything."

    More: DAYS [daysbreak.blogspot.com]

    Posted by fletchdd at 05/25/2005 @ 1:25pm

20. i'm very sympathetic to the article, and moyers, etc. but i must agree w/ the person who wrote that the article accuses limbaugh of ad hominem attacks, then proceeds to engage in them (eg. viscount of viciousness, The most self-absorbed personality in America media).

    admittedly, i didn't even notice it until the LBURWELL pointed it out. i regularly write to a brother who is far more conservative than i, socially and economically. i've learned how to talk to him by trying to remove as much bias from my tone as possible. we've come to many understandings and he's come to agree w/ much (not all) i've written to him about. he didn't vote for bush a second time; i consider that a plus.

    in short, if we really want to inform and let people know how damaging the limbaughs, hannities, et al. are, we can't do it by matching their vitriol.

    as for the comments that pbs is 'liberal', unfortunately, when we don't catalog facts at every opportunity, people like LBURWELL won't pay attention. and why should they? shouting that x is wrong doesn't convince anyone. he was right to point out the central weakness of this blog post. if more of us engaged people like him--intelligent, willing to listen (otherwise, why would he be on this site?)--we might have more people like my brother: people who no longer take reports from fox at face value.

    Posted by lonap0 at 05/25/2005 @ 2:11pm

21. Last week Diane Rehm allowed Ken Tomlinson to muddy the waters of PBS with his propaganda. Mr. Tomlinson claimed that NOW with Bill Moyers is a "liberal advocacy" program; he went on to say that truncating NOW by half an hour and replacing the thirty minutes of air time with a program advocating corporate interests is nothing more than an effort to bring "balance" to PBS' broadcasting. Since when is pointing out the pollution created by industries a liberal issue? Is environmental degradation, offshore tax havens, illegal/unethical corporate policies, the corruption of corporate money in our elections, or any other related issues "liberal advocacy"? It's not enough that all the mainstream media tows the corporate line of their owners; now PBS and NPR must allow corporate interests to spew their lies into the one uncommercialized current of conversation, analysis on television. It's not about "liberal/conservative" or "left/right"; it's about the truth; those without the experience, education, knowledge, exposure to alternative sources of information are now without the last "filter" on broadcast television. Corporate propaganda can freely flow in, muddy the waters, obscure the issues.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2005 @ 2:21pm

22. Rush's response - that Bill Moyers is insane - can't surprise any of us. After all, without a viable counter argument, there is nothing one can do but spout vitriol. Rush is a master of that but not much of a real debater. I too miss Moyers on NOW. He is what journalists should be! Thanks for your article. Gemstone

    Posted by gemstone at 05/25/2005 @ 2:54pm

23. Is calling a pig a pig biased, unfair, a personal attack?

    Fairy tales, myths, manipulations, lies is what wins elections, especially if the electorate is too ignorant to recognize the propaganda they are bombarded with every day. Most of us were taught about propaganda with the examples of Nazi Germany, the USSR under Stalin--overt, over bearing displays of totalitarian saturation of the senses. I graduated high school in 1984 and much was made of Orwell's book; comparisons were made to the Soviet Union, not corporate America and the federal, state, and local governments it owns.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2005 @ 2:57pm

24. MTSPENCE05: calling a pig a pig is not unfair. but a pig is a farm animal, not a human being. rush limbaugh is not a farm animal. calling him a pig is attacking him personally. it's as irresponsible as him calling moyers insane. if someone in private conversation wants to call him a pig, there's less of an issue (meaning, it devalues the gross dialog less) b/c fewer interlocutors are involved. when it's published, however, it adds fuel to raging flames. i'll be the first to admit to having used much worse language for limbaugh among friends; when i've published writings, though, i have never resorted to it. it weakens my position, distracts from the substance of my arguments and makes me look like i can't stay focused on the issue.

    limbaugh is a demagogue, a liar, a propagandist, and he doesn't care for facts (cf. FAIR's catalog on him). but when we publish articles pointing this out, we should take care to list why we are saying this w/o resorting to character assassination (eg. calling him a farm animal). we're human, though, and name-calling gets better press than reasoned argument.

    only the blinkered believe that PBS is heavily biased. and only the blinkered believe that any criticism, including self-criticism, is unacceptable. saying that ad hominem attacks are ok b/c propaganda is what wins elections is playing the FOX game. it's exactly what nichols and moyers entreat us not to do. (you don't say this directly, so i'm not attributing this position to you.)

    this is a small point, however. the greater issue, the one moyers spoke about, is the one that needs greater address. thanks to everyone who contributes to raising awareness of it.

    Posted by lonap0 at 05/25/2005 @ 4:07pm

25. When did I call Limbaugh a pig? I was only making the point that calling attention to a fact (e.g., a pig is a pig or the sky is blue) is often labeled as "liberal bias". These facists masquerading as "conservatives" dread the unfiltered light of truth; they flee it like a vampire hiding from the sun's rays.

    My comment on the deciding factors in US elections was in answer to the smug poster that claims "ideas" is what wins elections in this country.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2005 @ 4:36pm

26. When Limbaugh feels a righteous rumbling rising from below his belt, he knows his cause is just - just what his sponsors want him to feel. That's his $anity-clau$e.

    Posted by Bill Costley at 05/25/2005 @ 11:54pm

27. Good article. LBurwell's critique may have some value, although I'm not sure with whom it might resonate. For the past five years, much of what we've heard from the "loyal opposition" is so much conciliatory drivel -- either no "fire in the belly" or plain fear of offending the powers that be. If the analysis presented in so many of the posts is correct -- that Limbaugh appeals to folks who are less inclined to dig out the truth for themselves, or have less time, or are less educated, or are more fearful, insecure, etc. -- then perhaps the rhetoric needed to reach them needs to be somewhat on the same level as the foregoing article. For folks like Burwell, who presumably are more thoughtful, analytical, educated, knowledgeable, perhaps not. But one must pick one's audience, and address it on the level that is presumptively "median" for that audience, if one's address is intended to influence minds. Certainly, ad hominem "zingers" usually don't illluminate much, but sometimes, they just feel good and maybe get a laugh or "way to go!" response. And none of the fascist mouthpieces are more deserving, in my opinion, of getting trashed occasionally, than R. Limbaugh, or maybe B. O'Reilly!

    Posted by bobwalters at 05/26/2005 @ 01:06am

28. Thank you for an excellent article. The Bush machine is masterful in its continuing efforts to create a 2-tiered society: The elite, sheltered behind the security of their walled communities and benefiting from the economic machinations of the White House, and the throngs of unwashed masses, soon to be the minimally uneducated masses, anxious to be lead, following in lockstep, and serving the masters who so kindly offer to do their thinking for them. I was in Arizona about a week ago, and took note of a rather shabby car bearing the license plate: 4BUSH04. I thought to myself, how to we communicate our message to this driver and others like him who embrace the word of Bush with fanatical enthusiasm, and who pay little head to the facts?

    Posted by PhxBiker at 05/26/2005 @ 12:23pm

29. MTSPENCE05: you're right. my apologies; i misunderstood your point.

    Posted by lonap0 at 05/26/2005 @ 2:03pm

30. No apologies necessary. To be completely honest, I was killing two birds with one stone.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/26/2005 @ 2:20pm

31. We are facing a crisis here in american media that i am sure we are not ready to handle. it does not mean that we can't get ready, and that we will not be victorious, but as usual, we have mad work to do. i stood in the african slave burial ground at the edge of wall street in manhattan yesterday,where the bones of africans who worked and died with nothing and for nothing to show for it are laid to rest. there is a caption that reads something like "they made an important contribution to the American economy," an ironic understatement and even more ironic is that I was killing time before the press conference regarding assata shakur, on whom the US government has placed a one million dollar bounty-practically an invitation for a shoot-to-kill. Monuments are erected to the lives lost,during this grim period of american history, but today looks just as grim when freedom fighters are marked "terrorists" by the media and folks like Limbaugh are able to demonize a thoughtfully beautiful, man like Bill Moyers who has been such a driving force in the shaping of public discourse around issues that touch all of us. If everyone peeping what's going on doesn't see us in the midst of a full-blown, all-out attack, then we're in trouble. We gotta get moving and keep moving, with open minds, open hearts and crazy strategy, because it's on. this is it. and if we're not clear about this one thing, something that Moyers makes clear over and over, whenever he gets a chance, then our freedoms will continue to be clipped, hedged back, nipped, tucked until we just won't have any.

    Posted by freedomrag at 05/26/2005 @ 2:37pm

32. Good article, but I haven't gave a damn about what Rush Limbaugh says for years. I don't even think I can listen to his show for more than 5 minutes without having to turn the radio off and air out the right-wing stench from my apartment. This Limbaugh problem began back in the 1980's when the media was consolidated and rules for fair bias coverage were relaxed, and they still want to compound that problem more. Our media has clearly crossed the Soviet Russian Pravda line a long time ago and PBS is now the latest victim. Can we liberals help it that we tend to be more intelligent, attend "liberal" colleges and universities where "liberals" pedal their "bias" through the fact that intelligent college professors tend to be liberal. Think of that the next time a blow hard Limbaugh ditto-head tries to depict Republicans as the better educated and informed party. Frankly this is all a coup and always has been, but I think the plot is about to twist. I already like telling people that I'm 6 months ahead of the network news because I read the Internet. The truth is there is actually no comparison between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Moyers. I was only just discovering his show on PBS when he suddenly disappeared and since I saw the coming of Bush when Limbaugh was just starting out, I wasn't supprised to see him removed. It will take us "liberal's years to match the multi-million dollar right-wing foundation movements that have created this Orwellian world. So fighting for our oasis of "liberal bias" on PBS ought to be a place to start. Frankly the problem is actually that PBS is really fair and balanced, which to the right-wing mind appears liberal. They fight to hide the truth because to them even the truth is liberal. I'm proud to be liberal, and I think a famous person once said, "its not that conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative", and those stupid people are Limbaugh's bread and butter.

    Posted by dajson at 05/26/2005 @ 3:35pm

33. MTSPENCE05: To call Rush a pig would be an insult to pigs. I like pigs. Limbaugh I can't stand. There is only one thing we need to know about people like Rush. The truth is thier enemy. Sooner or later the truth destroys them. Lies can only take them so far. You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool everyone all the time.

    Posted by TruthToPower at 05/26/2005 @ 11:08pm

34. Perhaps if the truth is so distasteful, those that are cooking the dish should learn to change the recipe. I'm no chef, but I've heard that the Truth is a great ingredient for a successful National Dinner.

    Posted by Susanne at 05/27/2005 @ 09:21am

35. the entire debate about the limbaughesque variety of media personality revolves around the fact that no matter the message, they use words containing 4 letters or less. we have cut the education of our children for years to pay for the more hateful aspects of our empirical government policies. first we cut the arts(music, art, etc.) then we cut out the civics and history programs, then the geography. what do we expect of a nation that has been dumbed down. it is pointless to use words that so many people who need to be reached can't even comprehend. i believe that is why the masses re-elect these politicians over and over again even to their own detriment. that is why the hate mongers among us are listened to. they can be understood. think of it in this way...if you go to a foreign place where you don't understand the language you will gravitate to those who speak your language. life in america is much the same i am afraid. it may not be a good message they are selling but the masses understand the language and that is the shame of it all!

    Posted by kathy popa at 05/27/2005 @ 12:51pm

36. LBURWELL claims that the article doesn't provide specifics regarding Limbaugh's attacks on Moyers, or what specific subjects Limbaugh attacked. LBURWELL needs to get his eyeglass prescription checked because John Nichols said, and I quote, "Typically, Limbaugh did not attack the substance of Moyers's remarks. Rather, the viscount of viciousness devoted a substantial portion of his nationally-syndicated radio program Thursday to claiming that Moyers had come "unhinged" and that, "The things coming out of his mouth today are literally insane." (Apparently, in LBURWELL's Orwellian world calling someone "insane" and "unhinged" doesn't constitute "hatred" and "name-calling." It has been hate radio that has for decades engaged in hate speech and Moyers thoughtful comments don't even come close to the crap that comes out of the mouths of Hannity, Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, O'Reilly, etc.

    As far as LBURWELL's contention that he is interested in "healthy debate," what he is promoting isn't "new ideas" or "debate". A right wing media machine promoting corporate and right wing thing tank position papers intended to propagandize the publize into buying into an agenda that concentrates all power and wealth in the hands of the few is NOT a "new" idea. It is what the right, Wall Street, and the Corporate Plutocracy have always been about.

    As far as "debate," I suggest LBURWELL read Harold Myerson's Fox Fact Free News (and numberous other studies, reports and books) to find out, in detail, how misinformed those who watch Fox or listen to hate radio are compared to those who get their news from other sources. Misinforming the public intentionally is not about "debate" or "new ideas" - its about one thing: propaganda.

    Meanwhile, LBURWELL conveniently IGNORES the point that Nichols makes at the beginning of the article where he writes: "...the Bush administration ally who chairs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had waged a secret campaign to drive him off the air..."

    But LBURWELL, JUST LIKE LIMBAUGH, can't actually deal with THAT fact, so they ignore it, spin, talk around it instead of about it or demonize Nichols (or Moyers).

    Here is another specific LIE that LBURWELL and those of his ilk WRONGLY perpetuate:

    "80-some percent of reporters are self-described liberals." - John Gibson, Fox News Host, 7/13/04

    VERSUS

    "About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals."

    On the RARE occasion that the radical right admit the truth, you read this:

    "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

    --Republican strategist William Kristol (The New Yorker, 5/22/95)

    Posted by lrrysgl at 05/27/2005 @ 1:42pm

37. "[Limbaugh] closed off his rant by claiming that the millions of Americans who are demanding a more civic and democratic media are "off their rockers" and dismissing the notion of reforming the media as "an oxymoron.""

    Slimeball would rather that we keep the media status quo - run by a big, fat OXY-CONTIN-MORON.

    Posted by PeterMartin at 05/27/2005 @ 5:56pm

38. We the undersigned demand that the Congress of the United states and the president of the United States enact a law to increase the minimum wage to TEN dollars an hour and also to extend unemployment benefits for all people whose unemployment benefits expired after 6 months even though they still seek work.

    We also demand that the Congress of the United States to not privatize social security benefits in any form including taking a percentage of the social security tax and placing it in private accounts. People can already create their own pensions with money after taxes in the private sector.

    We also demand that the congress make all of a person's earned income taxable for social security FICA tax purposes and remove the 88,000 dollar salary cap. This will make social security solvent for many years to come.

    We pledge to boycott Walmart and call them at 800-966-6546 and demand they help in getting the above legislation enacted or we will never buy from Walmart again.

    We make no statement of quality of Walmart products but we maintain the right of free speech and association and of boycotting for the purpose of persuading congress to enact this part of a progressive agenda. After all the money belongs to us and we can legally set conditions for our purchases of products and doing business with any company in the United States.

    We the undersigned also demand congress and the president enact a prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part B which covers 80 percent of medication cost, with no extra premium, no extra deductibles, no means test and no coverage gaps or else we will not purchase products from the CVS, Eckerd, and Walgreens pharmacy chains. We make no statement of the quality of products sold by these pharmacy chains.

    We pledge to Call Eckerd Pharmacy Corporate Headquarters at 800 325 3737, Call CVS Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 888 607 4287 and Call Walgreens Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 800 289 2273 and tell them we will not purchase any products from their drug stores but will patronize them in the future if they can get the congress to pass a prescription drug benefit as described above. If a person cannot stop buying medications from the three drug store chains, I consider it acceptible to buy your medication from one of the chains but still refrain from buying other products from their drug stores.

    We also call for the complete repeal of the faulty Medicare law HR 1 / S 1 passed by congress in Nov 2003.

    Please tell your friends, family and coworkers to sign this petition.

    We do this in the spirit of peaceful resistance to a congress that refuses to enact this legislation

    If you don't support what the Republicans did since they took over the House of Representatives in 1995 and don't support the Republican party's plans for this year then Join the revolution for progressive legislation and sign the petition at http://www.boycott-republicans.com

    Write this url on your one, five and ten dollar bills in the white areas in Pencil.

    Tennessee residents please make an effort to boycott the following companies I list in my boycott petition: Walmart and Eckerd,CVS, and Walgreens in your state and call Senator Frist and tell him unless he gets our agenda passed those Tennessee outlets of these chains will not get your business. You live at one of the biggest seats of power in the United States. Organize and use your purchasing power to leverage it into passing progressive legislation.

    Also join my activist group

    http://groups.myspace.com/revolutionforprogressivelegislation

    Sign the petition to end the war in Iraq.

    http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopthewar

    To punish the Republicans for stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections BOYCOTT Wendy's (of Ohio) restaurant chain and Outback Steakhouse (Florida) chain until the people elect Democrats as governor and secretary of State and in the majority in the legislatures. Call and email Wendy's and Outback Steakhouses, 2 big Republican Party contributors.

    I call for vote by mail throughout the United States of America. This will prevent Republicans from vote suppression by skin color which happened electronicly and in person in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Demand that your state implement vote by mail with ballots easy to fill out and difficult to change or invalidate by Republican Party officials.

    Spread the messages at your grocery store too by printing out the graphics and leave it in your shopping cart when you finish.

    Look at this web page for other efforts.

    http://www.justicefornone.com/handbills/index.htm

    Thank you.

    How to destroy the agenda of Arnold Schwarzenegger

    and advance a progessive agenda in California.

    http://www.boycott-republicans.com

    The following people and companies gave at least 21,000 dollars to Arnold's campaign and recall effort in 2003. I have named some of the more consumer oriented companies meaning they sell a product to the public that people can easily boycott and buy elsewhere. I suggest people begin by gathering your legislative goals and call these companies and tell them that they helped Arnold steal the California governorship so unless they get Arnold and the legislature to pass your desired legislation you and other people will call them and tell them you will boycott them.

    and now the companies that helped install Arnold.

    THE GAP clothing stores TOYOTA TEMUCULA VALLEY LANCASTER, SIERRA TOYOTA JORDAN VINEYARD & WINERY VICTORY DEALERSHIP GROUP auto dealers WEIDER HEALTH & FITNESS Dean Spanos SAN DIEGO CHARGERS ceo CONANT AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCES AMERICAN STERLING CORP commercial bank FLETCHER JONES MANAGEMENT auto dealer PACIFIC WEST PHARMACY ARTISOFT, INC. HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES CONEXANT SYSTEMS SCHEID VINYARDS, INC TUTTLE-CLICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP FOOD 4 LESS MERUELO ENTERPRISES Emulex corporation HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY INC HANFORD HOTELS HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCES KEYES MOTORS HANSEN TECHNOLOGIES

    Posted by maximus at 05/28/2005 @ 6:06pm

39. association canadian internet pharmacy [pharmacies-drugs-online.com]: "association canadian internet pharmacy drugs online To People Who Want To association canadian internet pharmacy"

    Posted by suwan at 06/08/2005 @ 06:03am

40. Oxy may have propelled Rusch rather than hurt him I have even heard from certain circles that people feel sorry for anyone addicted to such a drug. I like the guy but c'mon give us a break pleeeze! Brian faxless [loan.valueprep.com] guy

    Posted by valueprep.com at 06/09/2005 @ 11:58pm

41. You comments were right on the money. The people who listen to Limbaugh do so only because they cannot read or cannot comprehend what they read and it's so much easier for them to just listen. On the other hand if you've ever watched NOW with Moyers you know you have to put your thinking cap on and digest the information finally coming to your own conclusion. There is no contest between the two and rightfully so....Moyers is a class act and Limbaugh is the class clown.

    Posted by janetkirk76 at 06/12/2005 @ 2:22pm