Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Have to love the fair balanced media we have in this country, almost like Communism, control what we want them to hear.

   Posted by: Sam | May 11, 2007 10:30:14 AM

   
   

2. Yes, and firing him will certainly fix that little problem with ratings at CBS. It was all his fault.

   I am waiting anxiously for the day when Keith Olberman is brought to the Broadcast desk from his perch on cable. Only then will I feel that broadcast news is worthy of my attention, again.

   Posted by: Rad | May 11, 2007 11:09:58 AM

   
   

3. Oh, let's see....you can't speak out against Bush while working for the media? Liberal media? Hah! Fascist control of the media more likely

   Posted by: woodroad34 | May 11, 2007 11:19:59 AM

   
   

4. It probably has to do with the terms of his contract with CBS to provide them with exclusive content rather than anything he said in particular. Though it is extremely odd for CBS to fire someone supporting a Liberal talking point. It may also have something to do with McCain-Feingold, but you never know what the lawyers are going to say.

   Posted by: anon | May 11, 2007 11:36:38 AM

   
   

5. there's nothing on CBS worth watching anyhow.
   their loss.

   Posted by: A.J. | May 11, 2007 12:35:54 PM

   
   

6. To the degree that I understand it, I can't imagine any way that the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law could play into employer-employee relationship between CBS and Batiste. It's simply the cowards in charge of CBS Controlled News who are deathly afraid of the Right Wing. The people who canned Batiste rather than continue to use him while simply identifying his positions when necessary are the same people who brought you Fem Bot Katie Couric. [The game that Media plays that ANYONE is actually "objective" is just that—a GAME!] The same cowards who rolled over and stuck their asses in the air to Karl Rove, firing Dan Rather and others, after it appeared some of the documents Rather used in the story during the 2004 campaign on Georgie's being AWOL and repeated failure to perform while in the National Guard to avoid fighting in Vietnam might be bogus. Some even believe the Rovites PLANTED the documents for just that reason, but, in any case, the FACTS the documents referred to—Georgie's cowardice in time of war and Trust Fund Baby tricks—were lost in the debate. The political shell game at his best. As Daily Kos wrote later, "Fact is, CBS got ONE piece of evidence wrong, from a while truckload of evidence....Note, none of this information depends on the CBS memos, but the Right successfully used questions about those memos to obscure the real issue, and that issue -- that Bush was AWOL for large periods of time and failed to fulfill his duty -- remained salient. Congratulations to them -- they successfully defended a deserter who not just failed his duty, but whose actions forced someone else to head to Vietnam in his stead. This from a man who is forcing soldiers that HAVE fulfilled their duty to stay past their obligations to fight his unnecessary and incompetently waged war [in Iraq].”

   For a lengthy, mindboggling list compiled by the Associated Press of Georgie's Guard shenanigans that were never punished see:

   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/132214/106
   

   Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 1:12:13 PM

   
   

7. Oh, yeah, I had forgotten about that! My thinking on McCain-Feingold was that some hack lawyer at CBS was overly concerned with "in-kind contributions" that such an ad might suggest. I'm still leaning towards a deadly-dull contract clause dispute though.

   Posted by: anon | May 11, 2007 1:25:33 PM

   
   

8. "The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn't have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on." >>> As Bill Moyers catalogued in his brilliant documentation of Media's eager marching in step to Georgie's tune about invading Iraq [even the "liberal" NY Times and Wash Post], several pundits whose early predictions and assurances about the invasion that turned out to be almost entirely wrong are still welcomed by one "news" program after another to comment on the war. "Being a pro-war pundit means never having to say you're sorry." 21st Century Nazi Bill Kristol is a regular on Fox [since it's been repeatedly proven to be consciously slanted to favor Bush that might not count], and Wolfowitz and Perle [who was also making money off of weapons manufacture] and Friedman and Safire and Krauthammer and, of course, the AntiChrist himself, Cheney. Rumsfeld and the NY Times Judith Miller have been temporarily shamed into cloistered silence, but it won't be long before self-important hacks like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews will be rimming them on camera. By contrast, Phil Donahue [the first national talk show host to both extensively cover gays and treat us with respect] was fired by MSNBC twenty days before the invasion for being too critical, too questioning. Publicly, they cited [and misrepresented] ratings, but a leaked NBC memo read, "Donohue presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

   You can still read a transcript of the Moyers show at:

   http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

   Or watch online at:

   http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

   Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 2:03:04 PM

   
   

9. 2 weeks of hemming and hawing over wether or not to fire imus but only a day to cut loose a retired general who is only speaking the truth

   Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 11, 2007 7:16:53 PM

   
   

10. Moyers himself is hardly a saint in this regard, being a huge mouthpiece for Linden Johnson's little war in Southeast Asia, but perhaps he know from whence he speaks. Likewise, he knows just how to milk the system as far as PBS is concerned to the tune of multi-millions, far more, in fact than network news anchors (in regard to their salaries). I think the general rule would be that war sells newspapers, hence newspapers support wars.

    Kristol shouldn't be compared to a Nazi, that's a bad analogy, but Iraq seems right out of the Ariel Sharon playbook from the 1981 invasion of Lebanon. Iraq is basically a larger scale Lebanon right now, and we know how that turned out. Bush is also a huge fan of Sharon.

    Posted by: anon | May 11, 2007 8:37:42 PM

    
    

11. Typos are typos and I make plenty myself, but, in this day and age, I question the basic intelligence of anyone who so woefully mispells the name of anyone important to their assertions. It was LYNDON Johnson, not Linden. Regardless, why should Moyers not be allowed to learn from his mistakes 35 years ago?

    And Bill Kristol is as close to being a Nazi as one can get without actually sending Jews, gays, and other enemies to death camps. He was and remains one of the most ruthless and toxic of drum majors for our illegal invasion of Iraq and demagoguery elsewhere. No, he just sends people to die in unnecessary wars. And, oh yeah, he falsely claimed that Gerry Studds had been involved with an "underage" page, and, re Mark Foley, implied that Florida voters should have known not to send a homosexual to Congress. And, "[Democrats] could certainly pass a resolution supporting the Boy Scouts in their effort to keep people like Mark Foley from becoming scout masters, I think the Democrats could really do a lot of good for our children." As the Chief of Staff for Bush Pere's Vice President Dan Quayle, he was one of the early architects of demonizing gays as an election issue. And I bet he looks really sexy in his secret black leather trenchcoat and officer's cap.

    Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 9:19:22 PM

    
    

12. Godwin's law:

    On Usenet, there is something called Godwin's Law. This states that if one participant in a discussion calls another a Nazi or compares them to Hitler, the thread has degenerated into personal abuse and there is no possibility of further rational discussion.

    On Usenet, there are two exceptions to Godwin's Law :

    1. Godwin's Law may not be invoked deliberately and so any attempt to use it purely to kill a thread should be ignored.

    2. Godwin's Law does not apply when one party genuinely is a Nazi.

    Most people also apply Godwin's Law when a poster begins to equate everything to Nazism. It's generally a sign of a degenerate discussion.

    LBJ: Well, the tree is nicer anyway.

    What Moyers has learned over the past 35 years is how to rake in the cash while appearing holier than thou. I'm sure Leland will be equally magnanimous to Bill Kristol in 35 years.

    Posted by: anon | May 12, 2007 12:54:30 AM

    
    

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: