Wallace vs. Moyers…
Today on Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace reponded to Bill Moyers letter to Wallace over the Karl Rove interview last week…(video via 186K Per Second.com)
Time now for some mail — actually, one letter from liberal commentator Bill Moyers. You may remember in my interview with Karl Rove last Sunday, I asked him about a Moyers statement that Rove is reportedly an agnostic who manipulated the Christian right for political gain.
Well, Rove answered that he’s an observant Episcopalian and Moyers, quote, “ought to do a little better research before he does another drive-by slander.”
Bill Moyers didn’t like that and sent me this letter, which he also posted on his Web site. He quoted four print stories for his contention that Rove is agnostic, none of which offer any proof other than what Rove supposedly told colleagues over the years.Then Moyers wrote this. “Obviously, Rove wanted to blow smoke because his version of reality is undermined by his own previous statements and by the reporting and analysis of journalists who have done their homework and don’t take his every word as gospel, no pun intended.”
Well, to save on postage, Bill, here’s my response. If you want to find out about someone’s religious beliefs, a good first step might be to ask him.
If you had talked to Rove, as I did, you would have found out he reads a devotional every day and the biggest charitable contribution he ever made was to his church. Of course, you never called Rove.
That’s reporting 101, but it would have gotten in the way of a tasty story line about a non-believer flim-flamming the Christian right. I guess, Bill, reporting is easier when you don’t worry about the facts.
Moyers is a hack. To think he was on the payroll of taxpayers for so long…
Comment by chris — August 26, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Three cheers for Chris Wallace! Did Moyers really think he could pull the wool over everyone’s eyes? Reporting 101.
Comment by erljr — August 26, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Wallace is such a whiner. Rove now says he’s religious? Please that man lies like others breathe.
And Rove ought to know better about slander considering his record on the issue.
Comment by Steve — August 26, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Karl Rove is the last guy to point fingers at others in regards to slandering (see accusations made about John McCain during 2000 election).
That being said, Moyers is a disappointment, especially given the fact that he has had a long, prestigious career. Moyers has become a part of the same construct that he rails against in regards to the Republicans…just on the opposite side.
Personally I don’t care what religion Karl Rove practices, but facts are facts and it seems apparent that Moyers did not do his homework. If Moyers is going to report on how the White House “lies,” then he better start making sure that his own reporting has been thoroughly fact-checked….otherwise he becomes the propagandist that he rails against. Again, it’s a shame.
Comment by FishOil — August 26, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Yeah Chris Wallace. Moyers is a has been and is trying to get a little publicity. What a pity…Poor Bill.
Comment by Amy — August 26, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
If Moyers was going to bring up Rove’s religion, in my opinion, it would have been a good thing for him to have at least called Rove or his people to get a statement from him on his religion connections.
Moyers counters back that Wallace didn’t do his homework because there are statements out there (which Moyers used for his report) about Rove’s being agnostic.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/08/response_to_my_fellow_texan.html#more
Btw, Gonzalez has resigned. Saw it on the blogs at least 15 minutes before I heard FNC announced it. Is Chertoff in as per the internet buzz this weekend?
Comment by STP — August 27, 2007 @ 8:25 am
“Moyers counters back that Wallace didn’t do his homework because there are statements out there (which Moyers used for his report) about Rove’s being agnostic.”
Maybe there are statements, but Moyers should have still gone to the source/subject (Rove himself) to confirm or deny what others had said. If Rove chose not to respond to Moyers, then Moyers could have gone with the statements of others.
Comment by Missy — August 27, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Missy: Maybe there are statements, but Moyers should have still gone to the source/subject (Rove himself) to confirm or deny what others had said. If Rove chose not to respond to Moyers, then Moyers could have gone with the statements of others.
There’s no maybe about it. There are statements on record out there. As I said in my post, I think Moyers should have contacted Rove for a statement. If Rove would have given him a statement, it would have been the right thing for Moyers to have included it in his report too.
You said if Rove chose not to respond then Moyers could have gone with the statement. I disagree. I think Moyers should have used the statements in his report…even if Rove did respond to him with something to the contrary.
Comment by STP — August 27, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Was Moyers giving Rove a little kick in the pants on his way out the door GRIN. I watched this yesterday you can’t let statements this stong go, without responding. The three things that get people’s attention, Sex, Religion and Politics. Moyers knew there would be a blip in the news somewhere about his statement. The result is, Rove going on the record, how does that help the Dems?
Comment by Ree — August 27, 2007 @ 11:39 am
STP, I just read the letter from the link you posted, and it once again proves what Wallace was talking about. All the quotes about Rove’s agnosticism all come from reporters who were either writing editorials, or saying they “thought they heard,” or that they heard that Rove told somebody else that he was agnostic.
No quotes actually come from Rove himself.
Nothing concrete like, “On May 25th, Rove said to a group of reporters, I am agnostic” or something like that. All of it is hearsay, and that’s exactly what Wallace was pointing out.
Comment by ImNotBlue — August 27, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Ree: “The result is, Rove going on the record, how does that help the Dems?”
I don’t know that Rove being on record with regards to his religiosity actually helps the Dems. Probably not in my opinion. But, if they were to argue that it did, I suppose their argument would be that there statements saying Rove told people “this” about his beliefs and now he’s saying “that” to Wallace. They would tie it into Rove’s recent MTP appearace (where he said he wouldn’t have been a confirming source on the Plame info but Cooper said Rove did tell him about her identity; instead of calling Rove a liar, Cooper politely called him a dissembler) to say he’s a liar and the public can’t believe what he says.
And, yes, I agree that Moyers was giving Rove a kick in the pants. ;-)
To ImNotBlue:
Yes, Moyers was using other people’s statements about what Rove allegedly said. That in itself does not prove one way or another that they are or are not true statements. Nor do any of us know whether Rove was or was not being completely honest with Wallace on the matter.
Personally I think Moyers should have made specific mention in his piece where he got the idea that Rove was an agnostic instead of his vague “reports are circulating”. It would have been the responsible thing to do. Then perhaps Wallace could have specifically asked Rove about some of the sources of these agnositc statements. But since Moyers didn’t, Wallace still could have done a quick Google search pre-show and asked Rove about some of the agnostic sources he found. It would have made for a more interesting and challenging interview and Rove could have cleared up some the agnositic statements floating around out there.
As for as your saying that Wallace was talking about Moyer’s use of hearsay…actually, I think Wallace’s point was more that Moyers didn’t call Rove asking for a statement. It’s not unusual for those reporting (or those editorializing which is what Moyers was doing with his remarks) to sometimes use hearsay type statements and Wallace knows that. It didn’t seem to me that the hearsay quality of those 4 statements were what prompted Wallace’s response. It was that Moyers didn’t ask Rove himself.
Comment by STP — August 28, 2007 @ 9:15 am