<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill Moyers on Media&#039;s Future</title>
	<atom:link href="http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/06/07/bill-moyers-on-medias-future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/06/07/bill-moyers-on-medias-future/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:40:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon Garfunkel</title>
		<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/06/07/bill-moyers-on-medias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-2520</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Garfunkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:56:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1373#comment-2520</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure if there is common ground to be found. We should pursue transparency, indeed. But many of the left-of-center media critics found fault with the media being *too* combative during the Clinton administration. From September 2002 to May 2004, it was seen as not combative enough. I just suspect that a *lot* of media criticism (but not all) is based on the circumstances of the day.

I was looking for the transcript of Bill Moyers&#039;s speech. I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freepress.net/node/41347&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dan Rather&#039;s&lt;/a&gt; from the same conference.  It starts promisingly: &quot;And when you hear me criticize and critique the press, please know that I do not exempt myself from these criticisms.&quot;

Well, let&#039;s see if he delivers the goods:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
I only found out years after the fact, for example, about the pressure that the Nixon White House put on my then-bosses, during Watergate — pressure to cut down my pieces, to call me off the story, and so on... because, back then, my bosses took the heat, so I didn&#039;t have to.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Whoa. With the allegations from Jessica Yellin and Katie Couric about news execs pressuring reporters, perhaps Rather could shed some light on his personal experience in the last decade? He can&#039;t even name names of whom those executives were? Not even a comment that he couldn&#039;t comment because of the (self-serving) lawsuit he filed against CBS and Viacom? There&#039;s nothing in this talk even remotely approaching a mea culpa like this: &quot;Well, as you know, I&#039;ve had a lot of time on my hands, and I watched the tapes of myself during those 6 months leading to war.&quot; Nothing to say whether he had come across Landay and Strobel in that time.

Whatever. Journalism&#039;s Bg Feet have a right to mail in their speeches. But nobody notices this; nobody wants to crack the unified front of media criticism. Greg Mitchell, writing in E&amp;P, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003813671&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stenographs it in&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure if there is common ground to be found. We should pursue transparency, indeed. But many of the left-of-center media critics found fault with the media being *too* combative during the Clinton administration. From September 2002 to May 2004, it was seen as not combative enough. I just suspect that a *lot* of media criticism (but not all) is based on the circumstances of the day.</p>
<p>I was looking for the transcript of Bill Moyers&#8217;s speech. I found <a href="http://www.freepress.net/node/41347" rel="nofollow">Dan Rather&#8217;s</a> from the same conference.  It starts promisingly: &#8220;And when you hear me criticize and critique the press, please know that I do not exempt myself from these criticisms.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, let&#8217;s see if he delivers the goods:</p>
<blockquote><p>
I only found out years after the fact, for example, about the pressure that the Nixon White House put on my then-bosses, during Watergate — pressure to cut down my pieces, to call me off the story, and so on&#8230; because, back then, my bosses took the heat, so I didn&#8217;t have to.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Whoa. With the allegations from Jessica Yellin and Katie Couric about news execs pressuring reporters, perhaps Rather could shed some light on his personal experience in the last decade? He can&#8217;t even name names of whom those executives were? Not even a comment that he couldn&#8217;t comment because of the (self-serving) lawsuit he filed against CBS and Viacom? There&#8217;s nothing in this talk even remotely approaching a mea culpa like this: &#8220;Well, as you know, I&#8217;ve had a lot of time on my hands, and I watched the tapes of myself during those 6 months leading to war.&#8221; Nothing to say whether he had come across Landay and Strobel in that time.</p>
<p>Whatever. Journalism&#8217;s Bg Feet have a right to mail in their speeches. But nobody notices this; nobody wants to crack the unified front of media criticism. Greg Mitchell, writing in E&amp;P, <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003813671" rel="nofollow">stenographs it in</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
