Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, Moyers became the whipping boy of the week for the right wingers.

Watched his program "Now" and lots of his documentaries/reports over 
the years.  Seems to me he reports facts and does so in a calm, 
analytical way.  As I recall, he frequently interviewed conservatives 
and libertarians.  He even had Grover Norquist on that program.  So, 
the complaints registered against him were/are a canard, in my view.  
Just another in a long line of attempts to discredit and silence those 
who would dare to disagree.

Facts can be damned inconvenient for those with an axe to grind. Facts 
are truths.  They speak for themselves.  They can't be massaged as in 
edited, analyzed or reported in some way to make them something they're 
not UNLESS someone practices misrepresentation in some form.  At that 
point, they cease to become facts or the truth.  It's simple logic 
theory.  If I combine a truth with a falsehood, the whole statement 
becomes false.  If I report that which only supports my preconceptions 
and ignore that which does not, I am no longer being factual or 
truthful.  I may be practicing the art of debating; but if I choose to 
ignore an inconvenient fact, my whole argument collapses as a building 
would if its foundation is eroded.

There's nothing wrong with analysis or editing as long as I take care 
to present all that is factual.  I do not need to report what is not 
factual in the interest of balance.  Sometimes there aren't two sides 
to a story.  Sometimes there's far more than two....and sometimes 
there's only one side.  The media today likes to say it is being 
balanced.  But when it reports nonsense or misrepresentation without 
comment or rigorous analysis....the "he said, she said" stuff.... it 
performs a disservice for us all.

It seems to me that this is what the complainers want.  They want 
"their side" reported even if rigorous analysis demonstrates that it 
makes no sense.  They want each argument to be given parity.  Many in 
the news business are doing this today.  What's missing from their 
reporting is--indeed, Richard--the analysis that will produce a 
result---namely, that which is truly factual and that which is not.

John Figliozzi

On May 4, 2005, at 6:55 PM, Richard Cuff wrote:

> I will chime in for a few seconds here...
>
> The issue isn't so much facts but how they're edited, analyzed and
> reported.  That constitutes the "value added" of journalism.  That, of
> course, is where bias can enter in the process.
>
> Programming just with facts is boring.  Remember the BBCWS' "
> Newsdesk" program?  That was a half-hour of dispatches and no
> analysis.  Boring.
>
> By comparison, the "24 Hours" program was all about the analysis of
> the day's news.
>
> Nowadays, the reporting-with-analysis is combined in Newshour, World 
> Today, etc.
>
> It seems the lightning rod for this "facts" debate nowadays is Bill 
> Moyers.
>
> I'm like Joe Buch.  I'd rather see the PBS tell the CPB to go pound
> sand and let the viewers vote with their feet or their pocketbooks.
> Or, if I were PBS, I'd take the issue to the viewers and raise the
> spectre of the license fee to keep Congress out of its face.  Ditto
> the VOA.
>
> Now ducking out...
>
> RDC
>
> On 5/4/05, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi David:
>>
>> Well, to me, facts are not liberal or conservative.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.