You write: "Moyers is a political ideologue and propagandist"

Can you please provide a source and/or background information for how you came to this statement?

Moyers is as much of an ideologue as, for example, David Brooks, but Brooks seems so reasonable because he writes in the New York Times. PBS also carries shows featuring the Wall Street Journal editorial board, for example.

You also write that "Keith Olbermann has damaged the credibility and integrity of NBC News"

On what do you base this statement, other than that what you have heard Howard Kurtz and "anonymous sources" in the New York Post? (a New York Post who is owned by Murdoch has had printed absolute fabrications about Olbermann on numerous occasions).

It is completely wrong to compare Olbermann with O'Reilly. Olbermann does not send out producers to people's houses and ambush them just because they say something that embarrasses him, as O'Reilly has done on numerous occasions.

Finally, what do you mean when you say "balanced" discussion in referring to Lehrer and Ifil. Does balance mean that mythical center where conservatives mean those supporting the Bush administration (=30%) and liberals mean everyone else? Because that is what the establishment media guard dogs, such as yourself, has decided, in my view, where the center lies. A center, where Rudy Guliani is considered a moderate Republican.

For decades, PBS has not only promoted Bill Moyers, but declined to provide any political counterbalance to his blatant partisanship. It's long past time where making the distinction between Moyers and Lehrer is an adequate response. Either a balance to Moyers should be aired, or Moyers should be removed from PBS.

I don't think anyone presents David Brooks as a journalist. He is a commentator, perhaps an analyst, and in the Times he writes on the op-ed page, obviously an opinion page.

Zurawik is right about Moyers. He's no more a journalist than Michael Moore.

Yes, Michael Moore is an excellent comparison. Thanks. Z

There is something "off" about Bill Moyers. I wish I could be more erudite about this. It is simply an instinct not to be ignored.

David: There's something I don't get in your post. You argue that Moyers is not, say, an opinion journalist or a commenter with a fairly arrived-at point of view, but a "political ideologue and propagandist." Hard words. You then go on to say "that's okay," but PBS should not be presenting him as a journalist when he's really about propaganda.

Weird. For now we have the television critic of the Baltimore Sun claiming he's okay with using PBS as a propaganda forum for an ideologue-- as long as the agitations are not labeled "journalism," and unfairly associated with straighter news figures like Jim Lehrer.

How can that be, David? How can broadcasting the propaganda message of an ideologue ever be "okay" for PBS? Isn't it against their charter or something? Certainly it's against the core mission, right? As a critic, do you actually think it's okay for PBS to do that, or maybe you just didn't think it through...?

My interpretation: Either you don't mean it--and chose the word propaganda rashly--or you really think Moyers should be kicked off the air because giving venting space to irredeemable ideologues and video propagandists is not what PBS is for. Why don't you call for Moyers to be dumped from PBS for good? Either that, or revise your conclusion that he's a propagandist. Your current position makes no sense to me.

Hello Jay, Thanks for the question. I think you are hanging a lot of interpretation on my use of the word "okay." I admit it is a most imprecise term, so let me try to be a little more specific. I mean it is okay for Moyers to be a idealogue and propagandist if that is what he wants to be. I would describe Michael Moore that way, and I believe Moore makes a valuable contribution to the discourse of democracy -- a most valuable contribution. But we must understand what Moore is up to. He is not doing the work of a journalist -- or a historian for that matter. Same deal with Moyers. He is an important voice in the national dialogue, but PBS should not be presenting him as a journalistic voice. I am trying to find a link to the Esquire profile I wrote of Moyers as an "American Original" in September 1989. But I fear it might not be archived online. I am working on it. Anyway, it is okay for him to be a propagandist (which he also was, by the way, in most of his documentary work). But it is not okay for PBS to package it as journalism by linking him to Lehrer. We are in a period that demands absolute clarity about the sources of our information. And the only way we in the media are going to regain our credibility is being scupulously honest in analyzing them. I hope that helps. This is only my second day with this blog, and everybody urged me to be breezy and casual. Thanks for demanding some precision in such a civil manner. For what it is worth, in my opinion, your are right to do so, and I appreciate it.Z

Moyers, Olberman, & O'Reilly are all very predictable on any issue. But at least Moyers is somewhat mature in his ways. Olbermann and O'Reilly are a couple of sophomores who are an embarrassment to professional journalism. The screaming, the sarcasm, the self-promotion done by those two is absurd. If they (and their fans) only knew how much alike they are. Regrettably the far left and far right both have legions of supporters who are virtually identical in their shallow analysis and closed minds.

If he carries a press pass, he is a journalist and like you Moyers has a platform from which he works. I am adult enough to take views from any quarter that offers them, and make my own decision. Why should I fear hearing from Olbermann, or Moyers. And if this upsets you, how come you aren't up in arms about newspaper columnist Pat Buchanan's TV activities?

Why is it so shocking to some people, when Zurawik is only stating the obvious? David wants a source for the statement that Moyers is an ideologue. Anyone who watches knows it to be true. You don't need a source.

It would be one thing if Moyers interviewed guests who disagreed with his point of view, but he doesn't. That's why I'll give Rachel Maddow's new show on MSNBC a look. She's firmly on the left side of the political spectrum, but it looks as though she'll bring on conservatives to debate her. That could make an interesting show, instead of just the blowhard stuff you get with Olbermann.

Olbermann and Moyers don't do that. I don't know whey they are such scaredy cats. I guess they don't have much confidence in their positions.

David Zurawik has become more and more biased as time progresses, his opinions have been shown to be based on incorrect information and improper assumptions. he is a conservative idealogue masquerading as a "concerned independent citizen" striving for balance. What are the counterbalancing opinions that should be introduced against Moyers? Z doesn't say, because it is ultimately irrelevant.

Liberal Loons... I ignore them.. Maybe they will go away. I stopped watching Chris Matthews and Olberman and it worked there...

MSNBC needs to fire Olbermann before he destroys NBC's good name.

Last time I checked, Bill Moyers was a highly respected author and journalist. He DOES have people on his show who disagree with him. Watch the show. He has one of the best shows on television and was one of the first ones to recognize what almost everyone recognizes now: That the MSM did a lousy job in covering the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Hi, Thanks for the comment. If you want to see the first TV journalist to absolutely nail the story of what a sorry job the mainstream media did on the runup to the Iraq war, check out the DVD of the Frontline (PBS) series "News War," with Lowell Bergman. Bergman did brilliant work in chronicling what analyst Tom Rosenstiel termed an "echo chamber" set up between the Bush White House and journalists like Judith Miller of The New York Times. Moyers mainly repeated what Bergman and Frontline unearthed. Thanks.Z

What, no mention of Fox News as a place where opinion needs to be segregated from news? Come on!

Dear Edward Allen and others: Do you actually watch The Bill Moyers Journal? Have you watched an episode all the way through? Have you watched more than one?

1. He often invites Kathleen Hall Jamieson to provide analysis of politics and campaigns on both sides. In fact, this regular guest offers debate viewing tips: "I recommend not watching before the debate and after the debate. I recommend that after the debate you turn the debate off and you talk with your family about what you saw and what was important to you. And you think about what you saw." Doesn't sound partisan to me. It sounds like the makings of critical thinking...
2. Just this past July I remember watching a journal episode devoted to Conservatism. Did he bring on guests from the far left to demonize the conservative movement? Check out their credentials: Mickey Edwards and Ross Doulthat. Loons from the left? Hardly: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07112008/profile.html

Apparently, you and the McCain campaign will not be satisfied until everyone who is not FOR Bush, McCain and the status quo is silenced. I'd like to remind you of the old saying about journalists "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." Who exactly is doing that?

Of course Moyers is a journalist, there are no special credentials to be one. You use the media -- you report and you interview, so you're a journalist.

To anyone with half a brain, he is obviously a highly opinionated and ideological journalist. If I ran PBS, I sure wouldn't damage the brand by mixing him in with my straight news folk, but it is hardly a big deal since what he is ... is so obvious.

What is disturbing about Moyers is that he runs a multimillion dollar foundation that makes large donations to political activist organizations and researchers who Moyers then interviews on his shows either failing to disclose the relationship altogether or in a way that deliberately misrepresents the relationship.

Here are two articles:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/749qcwsk.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/920jczzn.asp

Mr. Zurawik, by approaching stories with angles the mainstream media usually does not want to touch, how does that make Bill Moyers a propagandist? Your attitude toward Moyers smacks of typical equivocating by reporters that both sides' arguments carry equal weight and merit, thus reducing Moyers to nothing more than a lefty O'Reilly.

Don't assume that the knee-jerk conventional wisdom that passes for mainstream media perspectives on the news is more "objective" than what Bill Moyers does. Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill don't ask the questions nor probe as deeply as Moyers does.

Mr. Zurawik, by approaching stories with angles the mainstream media usually does not want to touch, how does that make Bill Moyers a propagandist? Your attitude toward Moyers smacks of typical equivocating by reporters that both sides' arguments carry equal weight and merit, thus reducing Moyers to nothing more than a lefty O'Reilly. Have you bothered to analyze the truthfulness of Moyers' work? It's a hell of a lot more factual than anything on Fox News.

Don't assume that the knee-jerk conventional wisdom that passes for mainstream media perspectives on the news is more "objective" than what Bill Moyers does. Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill don't ask the questions nor probe as deeply as Moyers does.

Z, I agree- that was great. I have seen that Frontline many times but Moyers also did a good job. PBS is an invaluable resource, especially for those who cannot afford cable television. The basic (free) networks had extremely limited coverage of the conventions and lots of important speeches were not broadcast. At PBS last week, I saw Ifill getting comments from 3 Republicans on Sarah Palin with no other vewpoints. PBS is not as liberal as some people seem to think.

The question for me is how did "propaganda" get elevated to the level of an "important voice" in any dialogue?

Thanks for answering, David. We're just having a friendly argument here; normal for the blogosphere.

It may seem like I am hanging a lot on the word "okay" but my real hang up is on the terms "ideologue" and "propagandist." You seem to think these are all purpose descriptors for the knowledge producer who has a point of view.

An ideologue is not just someone who has an ideology, which comes through in their work. It refers to a person hardened to everything but ideology. That's what you just said about Moyers. Is it true? An author with a clear point of view is not a "propagandist," David. A propagandist is a political operative, for whom words have only instrumental meaning. Neither of those conditions apply to Moyers, in my view.

People who advised you to be breezy and casual weren't being precise enough, in my opinion. They meant to say the tone is more informal, and conversational. (True.)

If you make claims, people dropping by will examine those claims and talk back. In that sense, one is not advised to be "casual."

Hello Jay: You know I have great respect for your writing and work. But here is the crux of our disagreement: To me, the two terms as you describe them are fairly precise definitions of Moyers and his work particularly on the show called "Journal." After reporting on him and getting know him quite well since 1985 when I was TV critic at the Dallas Times Herald, I have to tell you he is hardened against most if not all things Republican, and is blind in his denunciation of them. In 1989, we rode around Texas in a rented car while he was doing a documentary, and he railed endlessly against Ronald Reagan and the ways in which Reagan was destroying the country. At the time, I was struck by how rigid and narrow the mind of this man I once so admired seemed. At least at CBS, he had some higher-ups who could question his work. At PBS, he seems to have a free hand, and the result has been excessively partisan. I see a propagandist as one not concerned with facts and context, but rather with creating a text that serves to reinforce her or his ideological point of view. To me, that is Moyers. Thanks for the blogging advice, even as it seems a little pedantic. I am sure that is just my "reading" of it.Z

David Baker in the first post doesn't understand the point. The NY Times doesn't purport that David Brooks is a journalist along the lines of those who report the news. He's on the Opinion page! The point here is that Bill Moyers is portrayed as doing the same thing as Leher and Ifil, which, Moyers' protestations to the contrary, he is not.

quotidian - I understand full well what I am talking about. David Brooks is featured many times on the "News Hour" as a commentator on the news.

We're talking about opinions here - I understand full well that Bill Moyers is, in making his show, using some sort of opinion in order to produce it. David Brooks gets plenty of opportunity, not only at PBS, but also on Meet the Press to give his opinion as well.

You are extremely naive in believing that Lehrer and Ifil are unbiased either. Lehrer gets to make lots of editorial decisions in producing "Newshour," many of which could be considered conservatively biased. Ifil's chat with Condoleeza Rice on the Newshour back is described by local blog icon Bob Somerby (Click on the link to my name for more details on this as well as Jim Lehrer's "performances").

Mr. Zurawik, you still have not provided an actual source or a proper reason from what I can see for stating why you find Moyers an "ideologue." You do agree with another commenter that he is akin to "Michael Moore." Can you please elaborate on that?

Insightful. Leher is no different from Moyers imo

News bulletin--everyone has a point of view. Some people just make it more obvious than others do. I, for one, value Moyers and his point of view. What bothers me is that now we all seem to choose to listen to the media voices that reinforce our own preconceptions. (And no, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk ... so I am as guilty as the next person, I suppose.)

Since when does telling the truth makes "Moyers ... a political ideologue and propagandist?" The same goes for Olbermann. We need truth tellers instead of the liars and opportunists we've had forced down our throats by the main stream media. If you want to hear the truth, you go to Moyers, Olbermann, the BBC, you certainly can't go to Diane Sawyer, Matt Lauer or Katie Couric (all of whom are owned by their networks and shame on them). Truth will win.

David,
You didn't answer Jay Rosen's question.

Please try again.

i did indeed answer -- twice before i left the office late last night. please check again on this site. i cannot vouch for what was or was not posted at other sites. thanks.Z

Mr. Z: While I wasn't with you on your trip with Bill Moyers back in 1989, I've watched Mr. Moyers over the years and found his reporting both refreshing and revealing. I've learned a lot about art, history, politics, law, economics, religion, literature and more, all from from the journalism of Bill Moyers.

To me, and millions like me, Moyers is a national treasure. Often, when I call my parents, we'll discuss his latest show. My parents are born again Christians, and in their 70s, they love him. When you write that Moyers has "hardened against most if not all things Republican, and is blind in his denunciation of them." I think you fail to take into consideration the public record of what republicans have done recently. For the last 8 years, George W. Bush has taken his Republican Party to the far right on countless issues. The list is long: Bush's war of choice in Iraq, the WH outing a CIA agent's identity for political purposes, withholding from the US public information about global warming, firing US Attorneys for political reasons, the list goes on and on. Any fair minded viewer would say Moyers' Journal has been a safe harbor for accurate analysis and news. Much to his credit and to the credit of PBS, Moyers hasn't been dazzled by Karl Rove's spin. To compare Moyers to Michael Moore is insulting and I think you know that. I've seen conservatives on Moyers' show frequently, and watched as Moyers bridged the gap between left and right in a civil fashion. Moyers treats conservatives with respect when they appear on his show, Moore does the opposite when conservatives appear in his movies. Somebody once said news is information the powerful don't want the people to know. As PBS officials ring their hands over complaints, they can rest assured, time has proven Moyers to be correct in the overwhelming number news stories he's reported on over the last 8 years. President Bush, Vice President Cheney may not have liked what Moyers reported, but I know now waht they've done in our name. Bush and Cheney feared public awareness. As commercial media bowed to pressure from the WH and the powerful, Moyers spoke truth to the powerful, radical few that misled America in so many ways. Heck, even John McCain says the WH and GOP have lost its way. Those of us that watched Moyers over the years and wrote checks to PBS will continue to do so. We'll do it because we believe this era of deregulated commercial media has failed to inform the public. PBS does a great job and Bill Moyers is a major reason why PBS succeeds. Moyers is not like Michael Moore, he's more like Edward R. Murrow.

Hi Greg, Thanks for this thoughful analysis. I shared many of your opinions about Moyers before reporting the piece I mentioned in my original post. Your last sentence is a wonderful crystallization of the matter -- except that we disagree on the conclusion. The disappointment of Bill Moyers for me is that I thought he was the Edward R. Murrow of my generation, but he turned out to be Michael Moore. And as I said in an answer to Jay, that is not a bad thing. It just is not journalism or history. But you offer a great thumbnail sketch of Moyers as seen by some of his fans. And I thank you for it. Stay tuned, I have about 10 million other things to do today as the TV critic at the Sun, but if I cannot find a link to the article I mentioned, I will actually try to type passages onto the blog that cover Moyers as propagandist, etc.. But I really appreciate you taking the time to share you thoughts. Z

You need to provide supporting doucment. You can not simply attack people.
I think you are the propogandist!!!

Please, explain more about Keith and Moyer. I watched both of them for a while. I did not understand you point...

It pleases me that you are so extremely uncomfortable with Bill Moyers. He is as clear a thinker on the left as we have on the airways, his guests are always top-notch, his topics of great importance to the country and the species, and all of this is handled with the dignity it deserves.

I agree with Jay Rosen that the words you use to describe Moyers are uncalled for. As with so many bloggers commenting on the media, you fall in with the "ankle biters", enviously snapping at commentators of persuasions not your own who are, thankfully, much more important, and successful, than you are.

As I told Jay, I chose those two words with great care and they convey what I want to say. Yes, they are strong. Thanks Z

One word for Moyers: middlebrow

Another: arrogant

Hardly surprising when you think he was the press contact for Lyndon Johnson.

The only difference between Moyers and O'Reilly is that O'Reilly paid by Rupert's hard earned dollars, while Moyers is paid in tax dollars, and gifts from those who buy what PBS is selling these days.

That said, he's not a journalist--he's a flack for the Democratic party--always has been.

It's disturbing that so many posters here seem either confused about or oblivious to the distinction that SHOULD exist between journalists who limit their copy and comments to factual information and media figures like O'Reilly, Olbermann and Moyers whose work centers on personal opinion.

Moyers is a former press secretary to Lyndon Johnson. He should never be portrayed as a journalist. But of course that also applies to George Stephanopolous (Clinton White House) and Diane Sawyer (Nixon White House).

I suppose if news consumers are confused about how and why reporters should be considered as different creatures from past political operatives, it's only because "news" managers at so many media operations have fostered that confusion with their own hiring practices. A pity.

There seems to be something in liberal DNA. They can watch something, someone, who is so far out on the left that it cannot be missed, i.e. Bill Moyers, and never complain about bias. Yet liberals will take someone like O'Reilly and make the same comparison. Moyers seldom has a conservative guest, only those guests who will reinforce his ideology. O'Reilly has balance on his show virtually on every subject. PBS also is supported by tax money while Fox News is an independent corporation. Is there ANY comparison? I think not. Yet we see time and again liberals simply missing the entire debate seemingly scared to hear anything that might bring down their wall of denial. Such non-thinking only exemplifies why tyranny springs forth from liberalism. They just cannot think straight!

"Moyers is a political ideologue and propagandist" Interesting statement, perhaps it would be more effective if you provided an example, or quote from his show to back it up.

This is to David Brooks.

"You also write that "Keith Olbermann has damaged the credibility and integrity of NBC News"

On what do you base this statement.."

Huh? Are you aware that MSNBC is consistently LAST in ratings. More importantly, did you actually watch Olbermann during the GOP convention?

The guy is SO far in the tank for 0bama he argued that Lincoln didn't actually start the GOP. Olbermann is simply a tool...of DailyKos and other hard core leftists.

Can't wait til them tell him to take a hike altogether.

Oh yeah, and Moyers?

PBS is a governement funded organization. Our tax dollars pay his salary. He is WAY too far left to be taking MY money.

Do away with PBS. If it has value to an audience let it market itself like any other network. No tax dollars should be spent on PBS.

I am assuming you are referring to me.
Your statement that MSNBC is "LAST in ratings" is just simply false. Olbermann actually comes in second to Bill O. in overall ratings. Furthermore, Olbermann has beaten O' Reilly in the key 25-54 from time to time, although not on the date in question to which I link in my name.

(Click on my name for the link to "TV Newser" which gets its data from Nielsen' s overnights.)

Of note as well in that link is that Rachel Maddow actually beat Larry King on Monday night, something that Dan Abrams or anyone else in that time slot had ever managed to do.

Fact of the matter is that Olbermann is successful in bringing ratings to MSNBC. MSNBC, based on said ratings, decided to allow Olbermann run its election coverage. After the pearl-clutchers in the establishment managed to convince Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw that Olbermann was too unseemly for said coverage, he was banished back to his "opinion" show. That is NBC's good right.

I would posit as well that Olbermann has many detractors on the proverbial left side of the aisle between those that find him bombastic and self righteous and others that find him a misogynist based on his anti-Clinton "Special Comment," which I personally found over the top as well.

The point of all of this is that Olbermann's "objective" hat has been taken away, but he still maintains his "opinion" hat just like Hannity or O'Reilly. I would also repeat my point that I find the "objective" label to be silly and hypocritical in the first place. We all have our own formed biases and I think we are all smart enough to form opinions based on the enormous amount of information available to us. I personally enough of an iconoclast to not take any news source whatsoever at face value, whether it is from the "left" or the "right."

I am in no means any way affiliated with Daily Kos, but Daily Kos is merely a large collection of blogs such as this one, Olbermann happens to blog on there from time to time as well. You simply display a fundamental misunderstanding of how Daily Kos works in the first place by stating that Olbermann is a "tool" of it.

NBC surely has a right to do what it wants. I would posit to you that ideology certainly has played a part in what they air. In fact, despite getting relatively good ratings (we are talking cable here), and in comparison with his predecessor, as well as his successor, Phil Donahue was yanked off the air in 2003 in the run up to the Iraq war.

As you can see from the comments here, quite a few people enjoy Moyers program. I realize that public television in general is something that would not exist if some conservatives had their say, in a democracy where we have public airwaves, shouldn't we at least have different views displayed on said public airwaves? I don't have personally own any stock, but I think that Wall Street Week in Review, for example, surely can have a place on public television as well. Frankly, I think Moyers' program has individual donor sponsors, just like many of the programs on PBS, so it surely is open for debate whether "your tax dollars" are actually involved here in the first place. (I will certainly admit that I am wrong if Moyers' program does involve a majority of tax dollars)

Finally, do you have a link for where you say that Olbermann said that "Lincoln didn't actually start the GOP?" I would be interested in seeing that.

The "you" to whom this comment is addressed is the earlier commentator "Tim." Z

Why has Fox news become so successful and I often hear other media outlet's refer to Murdoch as the millionaire conservative? Truth to me is he is a smart businessman who acknowledged that there was no outlet for conservative news and filled a void that has paid him

PBS is a wing of the Democrat party
Lehrer and Ifill are totally biased liberals.
I can't watch them for more than 10 seconds without wanting to barf.
I would never, ever go to PBS for straight, factual, unbaised reporting.
PBS is the government's marxist propaganda wing - Radio Slave America.

For shame Sir. Bill Moyers is an excellent journalist not to be slandered with your palavering brush.

"Propagandist" is a bold word and you use it recklessly. You give no example to support your claim and ignore the entire "conservative" machine that has forced propadana on the American public for the past eight years. The drum beat for war over fictitious WMDs and the complicit media = propaganda. To what end? The bettering of American lives? The furthering of family values. For shame that you and your brethren refuse to step beyond the trappings of the so-called "conservative" party and embrace any form of truth other than an imagined moral superiority and manifest destiny to control this country.

If Bill Moyers is an ideologue, I take comfort in his stance. Zealous defense of our Consitution, equality for genders and races. Religious harmony and communication. I hope he defends his ideology with zeal to match the unbridled toxicity of "conservative" mouthpieces.

The general definition of journalism is the collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts. By this definition all of the above are journalists.

From an African American perspective, if you choose to add fair and balanced to the definition, then the entire corporate media suffers from a lack of being fair and balanced,
either in the workplace or in its content.

Henceforth your critique of a few vs the many suffers from a high degree of hypocrisy.

Enough of the Great Distraction

This campaign season is historical not only in its candidates but in its ability to inspire and mobilize younger generations to involve themselves in politics. I naively thought I could be informed by watching the major network news stations. It’s bad enough that the McInsane train is playing the same political game as his predecessor, its worse that the major “news” networks get sucked in and perpetuate this disservice to the American public.

David Gergen said it best, “I can’t believe we’re all sitting here on the tarmac [in Alaska] waiting to watch the arrival of a VP candidate; we don’t do that for a Presidential candidate.”

Is the truth getting through? Hardly. Not when the news is no better than the National Enquirer! This election is not about lipstick!

Haven’t we had enough with the stupidity of the Bush era. Wake up people! Go to any of the major “news” pages, the headlines are all about Palin. If they do happen to reference either McCain or Obama, it’s in reference to Palin.

“Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.”

Enough! How pathetic. I’m sure the world is laughing at us still. The ones that end up losing at the end of the day, are the American people.

Yikes. You choose one of the very few TV journalists who displays clarity and intelligence and label him a "ideologue and propagandist?"
People like you really scare me. So let me get this straight- in order to prove that he's "fair and balanced" should Bill Moyers be saying that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia or Eurasia?

There is no question that Moyers and PBS lean to the left. Moyers leans to the far left. As others have commented here, there should be more political balance on PBS since ALL of US are paying for PBS. If PBS wants to remain a liberal network than it should be removed from the public dole. My tax dollars could be better spend on hurricane relief.

Mr. Z makes a fact-free allegation and sheds crocodile tears about wishing Mr. Moyers to be Murrow, only to be supposedly disappointed. Mr. Z is a conservative hack making an attack -- and a cheap shot at that. Studiously unmentioned by Mr. Z is the independent affirmation of Mr. Moyers' achievement and standing among his peers and evidence over decades of his consistent quality: the awarding of virtually every broadcast journalism award, including over 30 Emmy Awards, and Dupont and Peabody awards. No danger of Mr. Z ever challenging that accomplishment, but Mr. Z, true to his ideological myopia, will find a way to dismiss that distinguished record in order to uphold his point of view. THAT is the mark of a propagandist -- hold your opinion against all other evidence.

Absolutely Moyers is as Z calls it. I'm not even surprised by that call. Two feminists online (Ava and C.I.) at The Third Estate Sunday Review have repeatedly taken on the 'great' Moyers and demonstrated how his show books very few women and how Moyers slants things. The best example of that was Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire moment. They pointed out that Moyers said on air he didn't know whether it was sincere or not, they pointed out that he dubbed the moment the "moisty moment" and they pointed out that he decided to let viewers see to decide for themselves.
And what did viewers see? Not the clip. They saw Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.'s MSNBC bit where he gripes about Hillary. That's not journalism and Moyers should have been called out.
I was for Barack as early as July 2007 but by about February, I couldn't take Moyers program anymore because each week was all about making the case for Barack.

Moyers IS a journalist. He is trying to convince people to agree with him on a given issue, but he does it through relatively sound journalism or interviews. Moyers has been going after "media" specifically big media and how poorly it has challenged our government. "Buying the War" was great. Now that we know that there were no WMD's in Iraq we should be looking to see how the Iraq war started without any real discent especially from the media. Bill goes after everyone...New York Times, Fox, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, Rather, Russert, etc. We need more men out there like Moyers. I dont think there is anything wrong with someone who leans right or left being in journalism. It would have been nice if Hannity, O reily, or Limbaugh challenged the bush doctrine. Moyers has asked questions about Obama not excepting public financing etc. Moyers is fighting for idependent media, ethics and so should all of us.