moyers

Several people have emailed to thank me for posting Bill Moyers's recent speech at the National Conference for Media Reform, and mentioned they hadn't caught it before. So, working on a basic tenet of political organizing - "each one, reach one" - I once again urge you to read this formidable piece of writing and thinking.

It's long, and I suspect many of us have skimmed it, but not read it cover to cover. I'm guilty of that more often than I'd like to be; we're all pressed for time, with too much to read.

But please. Set aside 15 or 20 minutes of your life for this man's thoughts.

For me, it's easy: Moyers quotes Orwell, and Steinbeck, and calls Judith Miller a government stenographer! I'll give him 15 minutes on my busiest day.

As further proof, I offer you some excerpts.
I mean the people obsessed with control, using the government to threaten and intimidate. I mean the people who are hollowing out middle class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class in a war to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq’s oil. I mean the people who turn faith based initiatives into a slush fund and who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets. I mean the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy.

That’s who I mean. And if that’s editorializing, so be it. A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence.

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.

. . .

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.

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 thirty years ago or the Iran Contra conspiracy twenty years ago or Bill Clinton’s fund raising scandals ten 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.

. . .

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.

In Orwell's "1984", the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist Winston, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" "Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought," he said, "will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy – or worse.

. . .

I told our producers and correspondents that in our field reporting our job was to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. This was all the more imperative in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. America could be entering a long war against an elusive and stateless enemy with no definable measure of victory and no limit to its duration, cost or foreboding fear. The rise of a homeland security state meant government could justify extraordinary measures in exchange for protecting citizens against unnamed, even unproven, threats.

Furthermore, increased spending during a national emergency can produce a spectacle of corruption behind a smokescreen of secrecy. I reminded our team of the words of the news photographer in Tom Stoppard's play who said, "People do terrible things to each other, but it's worse when everyone is kept in the dark."

I also reminded them of how the correspondent and historian, Richard Reeves, answered a student who asked him to define real news. "Real news," Reeves responded, "is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms."

. . .

The point of the story is something only a handful of our team, including my wife and partner Judith Davidson Moyers, and I knew at the time -- that the success of NOW's journalism was creating a backlash in Washington.

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican party became. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don't want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can't be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn't, God forbid. Never mind that their own stars were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line. It wasn't that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were getting it right, not right-wing -- telling stories that partisans in power didn't want told.

. . .

This letter came to me last year from a woman in New York, five pages of handwriting. She said, among other things, that "After the worst sneak attack in our history, there’s not been a moment to reflect, a moment to let the horror resonate, a moment to feel the pain and regroup as humans. No, since I lost my husband on 9/11, not only our family’s world, but the whole world seems to have gotten even worse than that tragic day." She wanted me to know that on 9/11 her husband was not on duty. "He was home with me having coffee. My daughter and grandson, living only five blocks from the Towers, had to be evacuated with masks -- terror all around... my other daughter, near the Brooklyn Bridge... my son in high school. But my Charlie took off like a lightening bolt to be with his men from the Special Operations Command. 'Bring my gear to the plaza,' he told his aide immediately after the first plane struck the North Tower... He took action based on the responsibility he felt for his job and his men and for those Towers that he loved."

In the FDNY, she continued, chain-of- command rules extend to every captain of every fire house in the city. "If anything happens in the firehouse -- at any time -- even if the Captain isn't on duty or on vacation -- that Captain is responsible for everything that goes on there 24/7." So she asked: "Why is this Administration responsible for nothing? All that they do is pass the blame. This is not leadership... Watch everyone pass the blame again in this recent torture case [Abu Ghraib] of Iraqi prisons... ."

She told me that she and her husband had watched my series on "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth" together and that now she was a faithful fan of NOW. She wrote: "We need more programs like yours to wake America up... . Such programs must continue amidst the sea of false images and name calling that divide America now... . Such programs give us hope that search will continue to get this imperfect human condition on to a higher plane. So thank you and all of those who work with you. Without public broadcasting, all we would call news would be merely carefully controlled propaganda."

Enclosed with the letter was a check made out to "Channel 13 – NOW" for $500.
Moyers closes with this:
"There used to be a thing or a commodity we put great store by," John Steinbeck wrote. "It was called the people."
If you've made it this far, you've read about half. Now please go read the rest.

Comments

  1. Thanks, L-girl! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I will. I love him so much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, L-girl! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I will. I love him so much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks G - I have added it to my list of hyperlinks on my blog.

    Laura,

    Please come home. We need you here.

    J.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks G - I have added it to my list of hyperlinks on my blog.

    Laura,

    Please come home. We need you here.

    J.

    ReplyDelete
  5. G: what an amazing site that is. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Crabbi: I agree and me too.

    J: Thank you. I'm still in the US for a few more months. But I'll do what I can wherever I am, for whatever it's worth. Your blog is terrific.

    ReplyDelete
  6. G: what an amazing site that is. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Crabbi: I agree and me too.

    J: Thank you. I'm still in the US for a few more months. But I'll do what I can wherever I am, for whatever it's worth. Your blog is terrific.

    ReplyDelete
  7. J: Great blog. Added it to my links this AM ... will be reading.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Forgot about that. And I read it, too! Aarrgh ...

    My librarian brain is just too full of library stuff right now to remember what I did yesterday.

    But that's OK - it keeps the profession from getting dull. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Forgot about that. And I read it, too! Aarrgh ...

    My librarian brain is just too full of library stuff right now to remember what I did yesterday.

    But that's OK - it keeps the profession from getting dull. :-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

dipstick