digg

Join DiggAbout

Bill Moyers owns Fox News watch!

youtube.com — Fox News' Porter Berry, producer for Bill O'Reilly shows up at the National Conference on Media Reform in Minneapolis to ambush Bill Moyers. Moyers gives them a taste of of their own medicine as about 20 cameras film the show...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hammerikaner, on 06/08/2008, -12/+546Moyers is totally that dude's intellectual superior.
    • americangoy, on 06/08/2008, -4/+153"Moyers is totally that dude's intellectual superior.'

      My dead dog is totally that dude's intellectual superior...
    • dleesgeetar, on 06/08/2008, -3/+75listen to that fool stutter to try and keep up
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/09/2008, -3/+2That's what happens when you're bum rushed by an idiot and a camera.
    • jbenson2, on 06/08/2008, -66/+7You mean that hard-hitting journalist who threw softballs at Jeremiah Wright and looked at him with fawing doe-eyes?

      http://tinyurl.com/5shnpe

      Just wanted to clearly establish Moyer's spineless credentials.
      • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -3/+19Just what the hell was that link supposed to prove?
        • zspade, on 06/08/2008, -1/+8That jbenson2 is an neocon idiot. Mission Accomplished.
      • sKiLLa182, on 06/08/2008, -4/+15***** shill
        • geoffg, on 06/08/2008, -10/+2Yes Bill Moyers is a ***** jihadist liberal marxist shill.
        • notanidiot, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Way to go geoffg, it helps when people like you make us more sure that those that disagree with us are retarded. Jihadist! Thats a new one. Way to lower the bar!

          Oh, yeah, and by the way, FAAAAIIIILLLL!
      • edjenkins234, on 06/08/2008, -3/+8Now that we know fox and other groups have people actually come on here and "contribute" it's fairly obvious where posts like these are coming from. :) Keep it up guys, the people have woken up to your constant attack/smear campaigns.
        • Dragular, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2Maybe someday the sheeple will wake up the rest of the media's attempts to appoint a new Messiah too.
        • darkMAMEr, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6Ah, "sheeple" the debater's white flag. It says: "I cannot defend my position with logic. So, I will hurl made up insults at my opponents". FYI "sheeple" wasn't clever when the first person said/typed it, and it certainly isn't clever now. The same goes for "rightard", "libertard", "clintard", "obamatard", or any other word+tard concoctions. Whenever I see these words, I know I have already won.
        • notanidiot, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Furthermore on "sheeple", its funny to think that those who use this word don't see themselves as one of the flock. Not even the flock of idiots who use the word "sheeple."
      • quaunaut, on 06/08/2008, -1/+16jbenson2, you mean how he asked tough questions without cursing at him, and accusing him? Sorry that he's a responsible journalist. Look at the content of the questions and say they were softball again, jackass.
      • Hangly, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Because journalism doesn't mean getting people to talk, it means shrieking at them nonstop so they can't get a word in.
    • Namakemono, on 06/08/2008, -3/+34Understatement
    • rentmitchum, on 06/08/2008, -21/+5I love our generation. We combine words like totally into sentences with words like "intellectual superior". Awesome.
    • moonguidex, on 06/08/2008, -1/+24Sounds nice, but I think it would also be apropriate to say the other guy is "Bill Moyer's bitch"
    • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -1/+42I'll bet 5 minutes before going after Moyers, Berry was all excited and looking forward to "getting" him. What a mistake...Moyers totally won that bout.
    • humanerror, on 06/08/2008, -0/+32Did you see his address from this same conference?

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7154807849 ...

      It's definitely worth watching and re-watching
      • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -1/+11Great speech! Thanks
      • manmademark, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6Wow, amazing speech, should be it's own story. Far more worthwhile than him belittling a shrew
        • ieure, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2For exceptional turn of phrase, to wit “belittling a shrew,” I crown you Winner of the Thread.
    • JettaMan, on 06/08/2008, -24/+9Moyers is not bad but he can be a little flaky sometimes. He totally supports the welfare-state and believes in massive government. That's just the wrong direction if we really want to make things better.
      • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -6/+13Go back to the Ron Paul fanboy submissions. To be rich, and to still believe in helping the poor is commendable, and your rhetoric sounds like some post Alex Jones garbage.
        • JettaMan, on 06/08/2008, -2/+6To be rich is commendable. To genuinely want to help the poor is even more commendable. Making people dependent on handouts absolutely destroys them. It destroys their sense of self worth, their independence, everything.
      • humanerror, on 06/08/2008, -4/+23The fact is, "welfare state" is just another term for "functioning democracy".

        Look at the so-called welfare states around the world. Norway. Sweden. Canada. Britain. France. Countries will less wealth than us and less power than us and less influence than us and fewer advantages than us, with a vastly greater quality of life and average life expectancy than us.
        • JettaMan, on 06/08/2008, -7/+3First, they are not as wealthy or productive as the United States. The US far outclasses them in technology. Second, freedom is the key to prosperity. Taking someones wealth against their will and handing it out to other people is not freedom. These socialist countries truly do not understand freedom and they do not understand the relationship between freedom, wealth, and prosperity.
        • humanerror, on 06/08/2008, -2/+11As for the US "far outclassing other first world nations in technology", is that true? In what sense? Where's the evidence for that? I am an American currently living outside of the USA, and when I go back to visit I'm shocked at how backward the technology is in some areas, compared to Europe and Asia.

          But putting that aside for the moment, your other point is about freedom. Let's look at what that word means.

          What is freedom? If you think about it, you may conclude that poverty is the ultimate absence of freedom. If you can't afford to eat and can't afford rent and can't afford to buy anything then you have no freedom at all.

          Meanwhile, just as an example, if I have 9 billion dollars earning interest, and I were to have half of the income from that interest taken away from me, so that it takes longer for my 9 billion to become 10 billion, then perhaps I've lost some freedom too. How much freedom have I lost?

          Does it compare to the first case?

          Our current system says my loss of profit on interest is much, much worse than man with nothing's lack of any choice but to live on the brink of starvation, with his only hope lying in attempts to sell himself on the market to the highest bidder, which, unless he has education or "skills" or connections, and in the absence of a minimum wage (imposed by a welfare state), usually means not earning enough for a decent life.

          Okay, let's accept that. The loss of profit is worse. Exactly how much worse is it? How many poor people should live with no freedom so the rich man can keep his profits? A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many does it have to be before the scales of freedom lost even out and it's no longer morally correct to say the rich man's freedom to earn high interest is more important than the others' freedom to live life like something other than an animal struggling to survive at the brink of starvation?

          Maybe once a hundred million people are poor and wretched for every one person who mustn't lose his right to profit, then it's finally fair to restrict those profits for the good of everyone.

          Whether it's one or one hundred thousand or one billion or whatever the magic number may be, once you reach it you choose to implement a welfare state.

          So, then, the question becomes: how many lives is one rich man's right to profit worth?
        • Fordi, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5@JettaMan:
          Yet, somehow, we're being made fools of in academia, these 'less technologically developed' countries have more ubuiquitous broadband*, and they still have better Quality of Life and lower unemployment across the board.

          * And by 'broadband', I mean 10M residential connections, not this 3M garbage we deal with.
      • Bkaufman, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2These countries will not be able to sustain a strong, functioning economy/democracy in the longterm if they take 50% of people's income.
        • jezsik, on 06/08/2008, -2/+5Apparently we can't sustain a strong functioning economy / democracy in the US either. We no longer choose our members of congress and senate, big money lobbyists do. Who writes the law? Lobbyists. Like our Nordic pals, I'll gladly give up half my income if I have more input in government.
    • withears, on 06/08/2008, -3/+96- Moyers was gracious throughout.

      - Moyers put the Porter Berry into a submissive by putting (and leaving) his hand on Porter's shoulder.

      - Moyers was both complimentary and condescending at the same time - that was awesome.

      - Moyers presented Porter with a workable option. Porter wasn't ready to actually get an answer, let alone a legit counter-proposal. Porter was there simply to attack - to provide fodder for O'Reilly's broadcast.

      - Moyers let it be known that he fully expected O'Reilly to edit the tape for his own benefit.

      - Moyers stayed on topic and kept hammering at Rupert Murdoch.

      That was a example of a REAL journalist vs. whatever Porter Berry and Bill O'Reilly are supposed to be.
      • charlie55, on 06/08/2008, -23/+4the first thing i would do if i was speaking with moyers is ask him to stop being a dick. no pointing, no hands on my shoulder.
        • withears, on 06/08/2008, -1/+11You can't even recognize how that, considering Porter Berry is being a dick to Moyer already, would make him look.

          You should be on Fox News as a "journalist."

          I'm Digging you UP in hopes that people see your stupid comment.
        • FigAlert, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4Yes, and you would be treated with far more respect and maturity than you've just exhibited. Child.
        • jezsik, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Tell us, what would you do if you were speaking to Bill O'Rielly?
        • charlie55, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1why would i speak to o'reilly at all? i would speak to people better than o'reilly.

          pointing at people at putting your hands on them in order to be aggressive is ridiculous. only a pussy puts up with that *****, and only an ***** does it to people.
        • ericcc, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4@charlie55

          Porter was a pussy but maybe Moyers was in the right to act like an *****. After all this douche "reporter" came after him at a public function to try to embarrass him right?

          Can you even be an ***** with grace and dignity? Apparently you can.
      • Ebulating, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5"That was a example of a REAL journalist vs. whatever Porter Berry and Bill O'Reilly are supposed to be."

        I believe the word you're looking for is "shill" or possibly "vapid windbag"
      • wgasa, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3that hand on the shoulder thing was ***** amazing
        its like he's telling him, "im ***** you in the ass right now, but its gonna be okay."
    • Ymeg, on 06/08/2008, -4/+11I almost feel sorry for this guy. He had no chance against him.
    • Gillos, on 06/08/2008, -4/+9I never thought I would see "Dude" and "intellectual superior" in the same sentence.
      • supaklaw, on 06/08/2008, -1/+13Too bad FOX news is geared for low IQ viewers. They'd probably think Moyer lost the argument.
      • Stavrosian, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7And yet here you are writing such a sentence. The world is a mysterious thing indeed.
    • ZiggityZhang, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7I think this guy was the same dude who got owned by Father Pfelger a few weeks ago on digg.
    • aadyss, on 06/08/2008, -10/+4Too bad Moyers was Johnson's press secretary during my tour in Vietnam. Ya think he lied about the domino theory? Ya think he was complicit in the Vietnam War. Ya think he's done a Scott McClelland on the Johnson Administration? Naw......not Moyers. Too much of a wuss.
      • txtphile, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4That is too bad. Does he regret his actions 40(!) years hence? Would be a good question to ask him.
      • Duskraven, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3ya think ya talk like ya not educated? ya?
        • aadyss, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0How does it feel to attempt to mock someone you don't know by trying to convince yourself you are intellectually superior to them? Do you sing yourself a love song each morning?
          Let me put it this way so you won't be offended. Moyers was a pro-war aggression tool of the Democratic pro-war administration. There is no way around that fact. Has he ever stated regret for his pro-war stance. If not, he is totally disingenuous and a huge wuss.
    • happyseamonster, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Moyers is a TOWER! Old school pro. ***** porter and oreally.
    • GuacamoleSan, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Who names their ***** kid Porter anyway
      Best part was right after Moyers finished the smackdown Porter turns around and looks straight forward into nothingness; I can imagine "what the hell just happened" going through his head.
  • MattJhsn, on 06/08/2008, -111/+10I like the game "who can be more condescending." It's fun!
    • theaceoffire, on 06/08/2008, -3/+43I'm sure you do.
      Now move along, we are busy with adult things.
      • Frostman3D, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5Yeah, whining about Fox News.
      • MattJhsn, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0theaceoffire: You are busy with adult things now? Like when you dug PlayStation topics on digg 29 times in the past 30 days? Or when you dug Gaming Industry News 10 times, or Comedy also 10 times? Or when you spent your valuable time reading digg and posting 3,544 comments since the 2006? I can see what kind of an adult you are, thanks to digg. Have a good one. :)

    • trackerbishop, on 06/08/2008, -8/+2go back to russia
  • flashback99, on 06/08/2008, -6/+274Bill completely out PRed the fox news reporter. The icing on the cake was the badgering of the reporter all the way till he left the building!
    • zephyr42, on 06/08/2008, -0/+37Bill Moyers has balls the size of Alaska.
      • esfisher, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Or as Colbert would put it:
        "Muchos Huevos Grandes"
    • otbeverly, on 06/08/2008, -0/+12I would hesitate to call that producer for Bill O'Reilly a reporter ... at least in the traditional sense of the word.
      • TantrooM, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5An interrogator sounds more accurate.
    • TantrooM, on 06/08/2008, -0/+21When PBS starts being a threat to bigger news media, you know that things are starting to look up.
    • grr74, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4Why is it that all of Bill O'Reilly staff look like strung out drug addicts? They look like complete losers hounding the next fix. The badgering part would be like the first steps of therapy.
      • flashback99, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2he reminded me of scientologist for a sec there.
  • FrankHope, on 06/08/2008, -9/+325BILL MOYERS: I want Bill O'Reilly to ask his boss [Rupert Murdoch] where is the $20 per barrel oil? ... Rupert, you said one reason for going to war with Iraq was so we could get $20 per barrel oil. Oil is now $137 per barrel. It's wrecking our economy... Is Rupert Murdoch responsible to the American People?

    Bill is a lot tougher than he looks. He knows that this Murdoch troll would get fired if he ever agreed to go on Bill's show.
    • bfdonnelly, on 06/08/2008, -36/+7Rupert is FOX's owner. I doubt he would get fired. O'Reilly wouldn't either.
      • mrsammercer, on 06/08/2008, -2/+32You should probably re-read that.
        • flogistan, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4It was stated ambiguously, but either way you interpret it, it makes sense. The wrong way to interpret it suggests murdoch is by no means at the top of the pyramid, and can be fired too. The comment deserves to be buried twelve times in either case.
      • Fordi, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5"this Murdoch troll" == "Porter Barry", that is, a Troll of Murdoch's. Think 'minion'.
    • GentleRapist, on 06/08/2008, -24/+5Rupert Murdoch fired? How's going to fire him? God?
      • shakbhaji, on 06/08/2008, -0/+12"He knows that this Murdoch troll would get fired if he ever agreed to go on Bill's show."
        The Murdoch troll = Porter

        • deiloot, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Thank you. The boneheads can't read simple statements. Jebus christ.
      • ad33lshahid, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5he meant that porter barry would get fired if he agreed to moyer's show
    • purzzzell, on 06/08/2008, -2/+14@bfdon/gentle - PorterBerry, the "Murdoch Troll" would get fired.
    • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -0/+32Because he treats his guest with respect and carries himself with dignity he appears soft to the O' Reilly lovers out there who think whoever shouts the loudest must be right. Moyers is an extremely intelligent, well read and witty man. And, apparently doesn't afraid of anything...
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/08/2008, -6/+1Frank, you just goofed the names up. That's ok, a lot of people are getting up to speed and it takes some time. And you are noticing how people with no good arguement will capitalize on any flaw or mistake. That's all they have now.
      Welcome aboard at any rate. Your heart is in the right place which is the main thing.
    • SimonJohnson, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11Rupert Murdoch is a *****. An old one at that!
  • FrozenPie, on 06/08/2008, -6/+112Out foxed at his own game!
    • aerovolce, on 06/08/2008, -4/+11I see what you did there...
    • GregFD3S, on 06/08/2008, -0/+10I love it when Porter Barry starts stuttering.

      I also love this part:
      "I like to honor the people that do the real work, and journalism. Thats the producers and reporters, it isn't anchors. It isn't BLOW HARDS."

      Love it.
    • Ihateliberals, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0I don't see how you morons think that him saying that Bill should go on his show (that is watched by all of 2 people, and one of them by accident) to be asked where $20/barrel oil is, is such a big "win." Well...you pussies don't believe in keeping score in little league games either, so you have no concept of "winning" in the first place. I guess that is it. First of all the video and audio are terrible, and second of all, O'Reilly wasn't even in the ***** thing, so how the ***** did he "pone" him? I knew that liberals were goddamn stupid, but not this stupid.

      Why would O'Reilly go on a show to be asked a retarded question about what Rupert Murdoch said? How could he possibly answer the question of "where is the $20/barrel oil?" when Murdoch, not an oil man, but a network owner, said it? Stupid jackasses all of you are. Easily entertained bunch of pussies! If there WERE $20/barrel oil, this old bastard would be crying (literally probably, like the girl he and all of you are) about the ***** environment being destroyed and other typical anti-capitalist nonsense he and other "journalists" spout. As long as idiots like you all are out there, they will continue the dumbing down of the population so this country will open its collective arms, finally, to socialism.
  • IrishJoe, on 06/08/2008, -7/+387Bill O'Reilly's too much of a coward to come on Bill Moyers' show. O'Reilly wouldn't be able to cut Moyers' mic or edit out the parts that make O'Reilly look foolish. How about they both come on another show on another network and debate live (no editing out embarrassing moments) no cutting of mics or telling the other person to shut up or shouting over them so that they can't be heard. Moyers would be game, but of course, O'Reilly would be an unarmed man. Come on O'Reilly, "F*CK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!"
    • eyfhoerh, on 06/08/2008, -2/+32WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, $20 OIL?
      • catbeller, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Means that oil was $20 a barrel before we invaded Iraq and cut off the oil production.
        • catbeller, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2OOps. Sorry. Correction: Oil was not $20 a barrel. It was Fox News creator, financier, and owner Rupert Murdoch who has pre-justified the invasion and conquest of Iraq by stating it would give us oil for twenty a barrel. Moyers wants him to explain himself now.
    • amoirae, on 06/08/2008, -1/+20On Fresh Air, O'Reilly walked off the interview claiming it was unfair. Bill had the delusion that Terry Gross was a puff piece interviewer.
    • ultar6, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1This is because O'Reilly doesn't deal in objective fact. He deals in falafel, ambush tactics, bullying, falafel, fabrication, cutting mics, and falafel.
  • ScienceDoc, on 06/08/2008, -9/+224FOX - All Douche Bag All the Time!
  • perrym, on 06/08/2008, -82/+8No he doesn't, News Corporation run by Rupert Murdoch does.

    buried as inaccurate
    • Wakkyweed, on 06/08/2008, -5/+10You fail at the internets.
    • perrym, on 06/08/2008, -10/+4oh *****, sorry. i forgot.

      this is digg, we dont want any facts here esp. when it relates to Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

      let me get with the diggspeak:
      fooauxz nooz is the bush lovers
      evil nazi biased bad people.

      obama ftw
      ron paul for vp

      phew if i step out of line anymore, i better get sent to Miniluv.
      • Fordi, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4You know, if you had stated something that was pertinent to the article, you'd maybe have a case.

        As for facts - I somehow doubt you're any good at fact checking. If you were, you'd not be defending Fox News.
      • Wakkyweed, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Perrym, you appear to be completely clueless, so I guess I'll do you a favor and respond. In common internet slang, "owns" or "owned" is defined as "completely dominated by". Therefore, they were trying to say that in the video clip Bill Moyers dominated the other reporter from Fox news. Are we clear now?

        Have a nice day.
    • Fordi, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4Perhaps if it was spelled 'pwnz', you wouldn't have made this mistake. Or, perhaps if you, you know, watched the damned video.
    • catcher6250, on 06/09/2008, -2/+4He means owns Fox News as in pwns Fox News.
  • grungegbunny, on 06/08/2008, -6/+317I should start watching more of Bill Moyers.
    • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -3/+47everyone should.
    • Namakemono, on 06/08/2008, -3/+30I watch him every week. Wish he was on more often.
    • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -1/+32Its always a treat when I happen upon his show. He is courteous, soft spoken, and an amazingly intelligent interviewer. I always feel smarter afterwards. I think thats the difference between watching FOX and PBS.
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 06/08/2008, -30/+1Its always a treat when I happen upon his show. He is courteous, soft spoken, and an amazingly intelligent MARXIST.
    • leakus, on 06/08/2008, -1/+13What are you guys always complaining about the the news media in the US? You have some great programs. Check out Bill Moyers report about the war: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/
      • mikhial66, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6It's just that they come few and far between.
        • nosecohn, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1And nobody watches PBS, which is the great tragedy. News has become entertainment, and real issues are just not that entertaining.
    • niczar, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5If you want real journalism in the same vein (and featuring Bill Moyers some times), you can also watch Democracy Now! It's up every morning. You can download it as a podcast, or as MP4 hires video torrent.
      http://democracynow.org
    • foontala, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5He also gave Ron Paul the best and fairest interview I've ever seen Dr. Paul given.

      Part 1 .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejoIItxUXTI
      Part 2 .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcO9tRDg4NI
  • oldhick, on 06/08/2008, -31/+12O'Reilly is pathetic. But that wasn't nearly as cool as the title was. That was a bunch of "you come on my show, no you come on my show, no I asked you first..."
    I did like the OReilly's not a journalist part.
  • rdire, on 06/08/2008, -8/+158bill moyers is brilliant.

  • PATSCRU, on 06/08/2008, -10/+328You'd be surprised how defenseless Fox News is in the face of real journalism.
    • evilregis, on 06/08/2008, -3/+67Actually, I don't think it's surprising at all.
    • ramunenke, on 06/08/2008, -1/+29actually, fox news against any intelligent individual, unless with heavy editing, gets rocked six ways to sunday. Hopefully the station will be shut down.
    • zephyr42, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6I don't think it's surprising... the whole idea behind journalism is getting the truth, fox news wants anything but.
    • Pritchard, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Surprising? Have you SEEN how quickly Bill O'rly has to clean up his act when someone has a defense against his BS?
    • superjenn, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2"Bill isn't a journalist; he's a PUGILIST. You know that."
    • Cuchanu, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yea I wouldn't say it's suprising to anybody but people who adore Bill O. I watch that show and yell at the tv because everytime somebody has a point he interupts them or they just edit the ***** out of everything. Bill thinks he is the master debater but if he actually let people reply he would look stupid.
  • Ciryon, on 06/08/2008, -5/+134That was great. I love how calm and focused Bill Moyers is. Also good to see that (some of) the media and journalists criticize their own people
    • Puppyfam, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6Moyers handles himself amazingly well; I don't agree with his politics, but I really like the guy. I wish both sides had more calm intellectuals like him instead of the screaming morons that seem to dominate the airwaves.
      • BossKey, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3Regardless of your politics, we would all benefit if more Americans demanded the same type of journalism that you do.
    • peacenik, on 06/08/2008, -0/+8I agree that Moyers handled it well, but Fox is not journalism; its propaganda that pretends to be truth. O'Reilly was foolish enough to send one of his people into a room full of REAL journalist and the poor guy didn't know what to do when he was surrounded by an audience that was not going to let him get away with the usual lies and smears. I don't think that the other journalists saw him as "one of their own" so they had an easy time challenging him.
  • THETEH, on 06/08/2008, -3/+108It's always interesting to watch two human beings forced to treat each other with civility when you know they really want to punch each other's brains out.
    • Skurj, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7the tension is really intense, and it's neat to see who breaks first. the stronger person is the one who can maintain his civility while the weaker person gets even more visibly frustrated.
    • Grolsch, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2Look at the body language too, Moyers was dominating the whole conversation along with it
  • sk11, on 06/08/2008, -13/+67He's gonna get flogged again by O'Reilly, that's why he looks so glum at the end.
  • Tess101, on 06/08/2008, -10/+136Bill Moyers impresses me more, and more everytime I see him.
    The Murdoch style of reporting is over with the introduction of Youtube, because they can no longer edit pieces such as this, and continue with the Murdoch, and O'Reilly's propaganda agenda.
    Kuddos to Bill Moyers, and the real reporter that followed and drilled the wannabe Fox reporter all the way out.
    • PHiZ187, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7Sure they can. What percentage of O'Reillys conservative, predominantly over 65 audience do you think watches clips on youtube?
      • zeroduck, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6The problem with having a 65+ audience is... they die off.
        • PHiZ187, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Ok. But consider this. If we suppose that as people get older they get more conservative, or that the current crop of seniors are more conservative because of how/when the grew up. Consider that modern medicine is continuing to increase the life expectancy of people. This would have the effect of extending the conservative influence of seniors longer than it has in the past...
      • carpespasm, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2all the ones that keep emailing me links to watch the monkey sniffing it's finger I saw on realmedia 10+ YEARS ago
  • LimeParrot, on 06/08/2008, -7/+23At around 4:10... Moyers says something like: "Bill O'Reilly isn't a reporter... he's a peuganist(spelling??)". What's that word? I can't find the definition.
    • onyxcoltrane, on 06/08/2008, -1/+59I think he said pugilist.
    • LimeParrot, on 06/08/2008, -0/+30Oooh OK, yeah he probably did say pugilist... means boxer so fits Bill O'Reilly perfectly... thanks mate.
      • nycmac247, on 06/08/2008, -4/+14old world speak, he's full of pugnaciousness.
        (perhaps making a reference to McCarthyism???)
    • sasmon, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6yes, it's pugilist. It means a fighter, scrapper or more formally a boxer.
    • eyfhoerh, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1pugilist
      noun dated

      in his neighborhood, guys pretty much had two career choices: drug dealer or pugilist

      boxer, fighter, prizefighter; informal bruiser, pug.

    • SquigglyP, on 06/08/2008, -4/+15Peugot.

      He's not a reporter, he's a European vehicle.
    • transitive, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7exact quote, which is kinda slick because its a play on words

      "O'Reilly isn't a journalist...he's a pugilist."

    • saulmora, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6BM has quite a large.....




      vocabulary...
    • LenBaird, on 06/08/2008, -0/+12He said "He's not a journalist, he's a pugilist." Means he starts fights, not report or investigates anything.
  • anewname, on 06/08/2008, -4/+111Did Fox air their own version? Anyone got a link?
  • DucoNihilum, on 06/08/2008, -79/+8Buried as inaccurate, Rupert Murdoch owns fox news.....
    • Neoanarchist, on 06/08/2008, -8/+39Yea, so technically he is O'Reilly's boss. Buried as a dumbass comment and for completely missing the point.
      • DucoNihilum, on 06/08/2008, -24/+7"Buried as a dumbass comment and for completely missing the point."

        The irony....
        • moonguidex, on 06/08/2008, -4/+14Buried for another dumbass comment, completely missing the point, and not knowing the proper use of "irony"...
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3It's not like he 'completely missed the point' of my comment, right?

          I honestly didn't think I would have to put "sarcasm" or "joke" tags around my post, but I guess I overestimated Digg once again.
        • SquigglyP, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6The 'irony' you're claiming this dude doesn't know the meaning of is this:

          Title of article: "Bill Moyer owns Fox News"

          The joke being that Murdoch, in fact, owns fox news. Neoanarchist didn't seem to realize this was a joke, and claimed Duco was missing the point.

          The IRONY was that Neoanarchist missed the joke in Duco's post.

          Overall I found the whole exchange somewhat amusing. And then I buried everyone.
    • nickgwyn, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3buried for being the second time that joke was made
    • ZeRux, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Here, it'll put it for you since most people apparently don't get it:
      /sarcasm
      • qtpa2tpm, on 06/08/2008, -6/+0Here, it'll put it for you since YOU apparently don't get it:
        /not funny
        • ZeRux, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1For you perhaps. I'm one lucky bastard for having a sense of humor.
  • rationalbeats, on 06/08/2008, -27/+88Republicans are pathetic.

    • nycmac247, on 06/08/2008, -8/+10thought: recognizing that _both_ "parties" obfuscate, etc. like this is the beginning of wisdom.
      Allowing divide and conquer by "Them" only perpetuates the BS.
    • shakbhaji, on 06/08/2008, -0/+9''Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.'' -Henry Adams
    • starkruzr, on 06/08/2008, -1/+8Republicans are pathetic because of their pandering.

      Democrats are pathetic because they have no spine.
      • LenBaird, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4You're right. One is as bad as the other, and if we continue to think "one=good, other=bad" we waste time that we could spend thinking about how to fix both parties and our entire system as it operates now.
    • zephyr42, on 06/08/2008, -4/+4Both parties are pathetic. I'm part of neither party so I can make fun of both. Which branch of our government has the lowest approval rating of all time?
    • Ihateliberals, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Rationalbeats! A liberal, touchy-feely ***** with "rational" in their name? Is that a joke or something? All you liberals call a thrashing of a fellow liberal a win? You can't possibly think that this ***** that defended his liberal bias and was called out on it by O'Reilly, a douche to be sure, but still the better of the two douches here, won this "battle." Of course you ***** also think that we can "talk" to towel heads and get them to like us. I hate all of you *****, I really do. ***** all of you.
  • chrissku, on 06/08/2008, -12/+107Fox News sucks. Bill O'Reilly sucks.
    • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -2/+47***** NETWORK SUCKS
    • humanerror, on 06/08/2008, -1/+36The irony? Bill O'Reilly would never dare to really DO IT LIVE
    • miatman, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2Krypton sucks.
      • thephosphorbox, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Nice Family Guy reference.. loved that scene :)
    • arplayer2k, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2I have been saying this since 2003 when I was a senior in HS. Unfortunately at that time the O'Crap Factor was a big hit with everyone, who thought I was on crack. Glad to see the drastic change in the general opinion from 03 to the present day.
    • Ihateliberals, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0chrissku said: "Fox News Sucks. Bill O'Reilly sucks." Well, your daddy sucks too, or you wouldn't be such an easily led fool. Why does Fox News suck chrissku? Because they don't constantly lie about the war being lost and the recession that hasn't happened in the 7 years that CNN, NBC, ABC, et al have been saying we were heading toward? Is that why stupid? ***** sheep. I bet you think men and women are "equal" too, don't you stupid?
  • Tyrghast, on 06/08/2008, -9/+61Right wing media is always good for a hearty gut laugh.
  • jkleinfeld, on 06/08/2008, -7/+50I am digging this as I do enjoy a good ol' Fox owning.
  • ectocooler, on 06/08/2008, -5/+202Did anyone else notice Bill say "we'll do it live"?
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/08/2008, -1/+355:30
    • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -2/+17I didn't notice it first time around. Too funny!
    • zephyr42, on 06/08/2008, -0/+14If that was intended, which i really hope it was.... I take back my statement up top about bill moyers balls being the size of alaska and upgrade my prediction to the size of the N American continent.
    • andrewmcintyre, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1someone needs to put together a mash up of Moyers vs Billo comparing their "we'll do it live" styles.
    • Cuchanu, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3***** IT!!! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!
    • ultar6, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Damn! Thanks for pointing that out. Bill Moyers scored a double pwn on with that one.
  • jeffjenn, on 06/08/2008, -3/+31Does anyone know if that footage (even edited) ended up on fox news or did they scrap the whole thing?
    • jaydoj, on 06/08/2008, -1/+17Typically, Fox news, or any other news outlet won't show something like this because it makes them look weak. I'm not sure if they showed it or not. Rest assured though, Bill O will make some editorial comment about it. The guy thinks because he's large by physical standard (6'4") that he can be a loud mouthed *****. O'Reilly's 'journalism' is on par with the trash that Nancy Grace spews forth from her vile mouth. Yes, my epenis is massive, but I've always wanted to throwdown with K-Fed, now I think I'm changing my tune. I want Bill O'Reilly in a cage match at the joint in the Hard Rock, Pay Per View. Old Bill can donate his proceeds either to me, or to lowering the cost of oil.
      • PHiZ187, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6I can't even watch Nancy Grace. CNN is trying to compete on Fox News terms, by hiring dishonest hacks like Glenn Beck and tabloid-journalists like Nancy Grace. I lean more towards MSNBC now days, with the always Excellent Keith Olbermann and the insigntufl, thoughtful Chuck Todd. Although you have to sit through Chris Matthews, which can be tough.
        • jaydoj, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4Haven't watched MSNBC in a long long time (no cable, long story of which the result is that I am not to blame for) I see Headline News at work, so Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck 24 hrs a day. They're a couple of hacks. My favorite was during the Duke Lacrosse scandal, ol' Nancy raked those guys over the coals, then when that verdict came back innocent...she was NOWHERE to be found. In the words of the immortal church lady: "hmm, isn't that a mystery?"
  • EricDowner, on 06/08/2008, -5/+57Keep the Internet(s) free... This stuff is one reason why I love the net!
  • Oranjy, on 06/08/2008, -2/+144Haha. Check out his dominating shoulder grab.
    • username484767, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5When I saw the shoulder grab I was like, "Oh ***** here come the fists". That's about as bad as bitch slapping another man.

      Fox drone owned.
    • cheesypasta, on 06/08/2008, -0/+39It was a polite way of saying "You're not in my league, son."
      • Seaton, on 06/08/2008, -2/+9You sir....are correct.
      • ultar6, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I second that. I found it rather audacious that an O'Reilly ambush 'reporter' was standing there trying to tell Moyers how it works - an O'Reilly surrogate against a master of the trade.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/08/2008, -28/+12Who is Bill Moyers?
    • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -1/+12The dictionary definition of pwnage
    • secrity, on 06/08/2008, -1/+25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers

      "Bill Moyers (born June 5, 1934, as William Donald "Billy Don" Moyers) is an American journalist and public commentator. He served as White House Press Secretary from 1965-7. Since 1990, he has been President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. He lives in New York City."

      He is an old school kick-ass journalist.
    • obliviousfool, on 06/08/2008, -1/+9Turn on PBS sometime.
    • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -2/+3I can understand not knowing who Moyers is. Most people don't ever tune in to decent television. Ignore the digging down you are recieving, and look up his next show's scheduled airing. He is in my opinion, by far the best, most polite, and most intelligent of his type.
      • nycmac247, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3I have not had a TV for 2 years now and am happy to get documentaries, etc. to watch on my computer.
        Once having been "off" TV for a while the commercials - even on PBS, god(s) bless them - are very, very difficult to watch. Also, a lot of good PBS stuff (ex: Frontline) is available on the web and if a person feels inclined they can donate.
    • SuperMoses, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3No offense to you (most people don't know who he is), but your question is what's wrong with America.
  • fr0ng, on 06/08/2008, -7/+39When you look up the word 'ownage' in a web2.0 dictionary, that video will show up as an example.
    • Qumahlin, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4dugg down for using the term web 2.0. It's nothing but marketing drivel.
      • supermanKD, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I agree the use of web 2.0 in that sentence was a little retarded. I wouldn't go as far to say it is marketing drivel. It is used in marketing but that is why we find these great web 2.0 services. Marketing isn't all bad, it serves its purpose that is the reason Digg can be kept free.
  • Rooster99, on 06/08/2008, -4/+103My favorite was "Do you consider what you just did to Mr Moyers' real journalism?"
    And the cherry on top was that he basically refused to answer the question, which implies that he knows what he is doing is NOT journalism.

    Oh and the bit where Moyers' was talking about O'Rielly doing the debate with him - "Tell Bill to come on my show and we'll do it live!" made me laugh.
    • zephyr42, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1In his defense the guy they were asking was a PR man for billO.
  • GeoNine, on 06/08/2008, -7/+30The importance of these kinds of conversation cannot be overlooked. Bill Moyers has guts and intellect that are signs of a new breed of citizen. If we follow his lead we WILL change the face of media.

    Man I wish I could have made to Minneapolis this weekend.
  • fishbeef33, on 06/08/2008, -5/+75Moyers is a class act and a brilliant journalist. This is the PERFECT way to handle an O'Reilly ambush: use logic. O'Reilly can't handle it, and rest assured he will NEVER use this on his show.
  • FurryToaster, on 06/08/2008, -7/+52***** it - They should of done it live.
    • jaydoj, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2Couldn't have said it better myself.
    • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -1/+20Except that the "of" should be "have."
      • wonderbriefs, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4Yep. Pet peeve right there.
      • FurryToaster, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Yeah, I should HAVE done that. To late now. ***** it.
        • basilan, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Except that the "to" should be "too."
  • 55mph, on 06/08/2008, -9/+25Give em' hell Moyersl!! $20 oil my azz. Rupert Murdoch is Satan's first cousin.
    • DTJunkie07, on 06/08/2008, -1/+7And Hitlers half brother...it's a tightly knit family.
    • drboyd, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Correction: Rupert Murdoch is satan's mother.
      • nycmac247, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2gave birth from butt - "down under" style
  • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -44/+5Rupert Murdoch is responsible for statements to the American people? Is CNN responsible for broadcasting Iraqi insurgent propaganda? Is CNN responsible for replaying the assassination of American soldiers in Iraq? Is the Democratic party responsible for misleading the American people about a war with fewer casualties than any other war with an equal timetable?
    Its sad how folks think rehashing what's cool in internet cafes passes for intellect. This story buried as lame. Another cliche' in an endless string of cliche's by a mislead public.
    :/
    • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -5/+17You're a moron.
      • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2If this Porter Berry is gonna be laughed at for having nothing to come back with against a serious derailment of initial issue, then you can't be serious to have so little rebut my statement.
        If I'm a moron, please let me know why.
        • cuco, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6Maybe the answer is in your question... Is digg responsible for you looking like a moron??

          Another cliché in an endless string of clichés by a mislead moron...
        • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -5/+3Again, no serious rebuttal to an argument. If all you can come up with are rude statements to try to incite some sort of flamewar, why don't you spend more time on IRC? I'm sure there's a room for that sort of thing.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5"If I'm a moron, please let me know why. "

          The fact that you are acting like you don't know why he called you a moron means you are a douche bag too.
    • JasonHaley, on 06/08/2008, -2/+9No don't even try to skew what Moyers was saying because it was beautifully clear: Moyers didn't say Murdoch was responsible for what others were saying. Murdoch IS responsible for saying what he himself said to the public. He told the world that the Iraq war was legit and would make oil $20 a barrel. So your first question should be: Is Rupert Murdoch responsible for statements that come out of his own mouth to the American people? He sure as hell is, just like the rest of us!

      I suggest you stop going to internet cafes and read a news outlet besides the CNN, like the Guardian who reported on Murdoch's bias tactics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/feb/17/monday ...
      • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -8/+2Jason, I appreciate your response. Much wittier than the previous guy. I don't doubt that Murdoch has biased tactics. However, what irritates me to no end, is how the bias of others in news media is blindly disregarded. No offense, but a British paper is going to report news based on a culture of values held in large part by the British people.
        Further, I still don't have a problem with the war in Iraq. Maybe that makes me a bad guy. What I do know, is that there is a firestorm of cynicism in our country regarding our leaders in Government. Because of that, any report / story about any misdeed of the White House, sounds like a boy crying wolf. It's been done so many times, with arguable success, that I just can't take it seriously any more.
        • JasonHaley, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6If you want to go against the bias of media, left or right, I have no problem with that. I'm not British but I read both American, British and other country news to get a good overall idea. That's unfortunately the way media works.
          What I do have a problem with is when you say that Murdoch is not responsible for what he said. He said oil will go down to $20 rather irresponsibly. We all should be held accountable and if someone is the big chief of media and has easy access to broadcast whatever he wants and whenever shouldn't that task be taken with even greater responsibility?
        • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -8/+1Jason, I can appreciate that. My point about bias in media, in regards to this situation, is that if Rupert Murdoch should be held responsible for statements about an invasion in Iraq, and its supposed subsequent benefits to the American people (which, are arguable at best), then other heads of news Media outlets ought to receive the same sort of public frenzy as well (sorry for the run-on sentence).
          I'm not about to defend Rupert Murdoch. I don't know the guy, he doesn't hang with me and watch football. He is a figurehead for those whose political ideology leans more right. His news channel reports news in a semi-biased fashion that caters to it's audience.
          My issue, in short, (to beat a dead horse here), is:
          Where is the public outcry for the same sort of public apology from the leaders of an innumerable amount of media sources who spin lies to the global populace for a different political agenda?
        • JasonHaley, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4I have seen outcry against other media heads, from both left wing and right wing. Can you cite any specific example where someone hasn't been objected to? Is there any leader of different media sources that you feel should be criticized for a specific statement? Who?
        • crc5779, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Sir,
          Sure, though I don't know the names, I'd like to see the leaders of Al-Jezeera, CNN, and Keith Olbermann all given a real public excoriation for the PR damage they've done to our country.

          Specific examples? Al-Jezeera should be obvious, and too numerous to count. CNN? I think I was pretty specific before about that. Keith Olbermann? That guy bashes the executive branch and the military. His rhetoric gives comfort to people who want to kill you and I.

          I don't like much of what happens in federal government, including war. What I like even less though, are folks who either arm-chair quarterback the efforts of our military for fiscal gain (read: yellow-journalism) or to promote the efforts of a sworn enemy of our country.

          Like it or not, our government might not be great, but it literally is the best one on the planet.

          Might be worth preserving ....
        • no12u, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I rest my case.
    • rationalbeats, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3lol, you live a very dark and limited reality.
      • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -4/+1Sir, If dark and limited means I avoid television news and blatantly biased newspapers, then you have me pinned. ;)
        • rationalbeats, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4"Is the Democratic party responsible for misleading the American people about a war with fewer casualties than any other war with an equal timetable?"

          For someone who does not watch tv, you certainly know the right wing talking points pretty well.

          Ohh yeah, about that comment,

          ***** YOU.

          Every life is valuable. Go tell that to the face of a mother who last lost their child for this war, while she is at a gas station spend 4.34$ a gallon to fill her tank.

          *****.
        • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1Sir,
          It is a shame, that simple conversation about politics has to turn into a flame. If you cannot control your emotion enough to have a decent chat about this issue, perhaps you shouldn't be on here to begin with.

          I can spend more time than I care to about how this very topic started with the left wing talking points.

          You are right. Every life is valuable. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died before that invasion where valuable. Nothing was done to save them. Nobody had the courage to face a news media that would crucify them for doing something about that.

          The only person who was willing to do what it took, for valuable lives being lost in Iraq, will be remembered as a stuttering bafoon.
          So, a man who graduated from Yale will be remembered as an idiot.

          What's worse than that: A war that stopped an agregious amount of death in Iraq, will be cheaply remembered as a war for oil. The very fact that you and I are paying $4.00+ for a gallon of regular should be proof enough that was not the case.

          Do you not see the hypocrisy of your own statements?
    • Razormane11, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3CRC, you say the Iraqi war has fewer casualties than any other war with an equal time table? I think you need to check this link below out and read through the list a little (scroll down to the section titled "List of Wars by Death Toll"). A lot more people than just our soldiers are dying. Namely civilians. Maybe you should be a little more careful when throwing out a blanket statement like that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

      Furthermore, The cost of the war in Iraq exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and the Persian Gulf War COMBINED. Maybe this could be why so many people are so sick of the platitudes that the government continues to spew (yes including spineless democrats).

      And yes, everybody is responsible for the propaganda they spread or whatever else comes out of their mouth. But lying and deceiving more shouldn't get one off the hook more simply because people assume the critics are "crying wolf".
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/08/2008, -2/+33Someone needs to put a smack-down like this on Nancy Grace too.
    • christor, on 06/08/2008, -0/+8It has been done (and well):
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=5x8ARIxg51I

      That said, I'd love to see it happen again.
      • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6What a cold hearted bitch. She displays fake packaged sympathy, while tearing at that girls emotions.

        I bet she could gently stroke your face, whispering sweet nothings in your ear, while twisting your nuts off with vice grips.

    • codered1322, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5I f-ing hate Nancy Grace.
    • username484767, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5hate that bitch
    • nycmac247, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2no - her wig would fly off
  • clippypog, on 06/08/2008, -10/+1LOL
    NOW
    If only there was a news outlet, somewhere, that could show America how WRONG
    Citizen O'Reilly and Murdoch are!

    because when Joe Citizen has a "wrong" opinion there's NEVER a good badgerin!


    • bankrobbery, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2I emailed it to Keith Olberman. Couldn't hurt!
  • no12u, on 06/08/2008, -3/+20I live for moments like these. I'm so happy to see Moyers stand up to those idiots. I'm so tired of the endless trail of ignorant *****. It gives me faith that maybe, just maybe, sanity might get a foothold again. I'd pay allot to see Moyers and O'Lielly face off.
  • HelloVelo, on 06/08/2008, -17/+8***** Interview Sucks
    • notanidiot, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1boooooo! Only use memes when appropriate!
  • JasonHaley, on 06/08/2008, -4/+82Thank you Internet,
    For allowing journalists to provide unedited interviews that don't need to be altered to fit the bias requirements of producers/executives/sponsors...etc.
    If it wasn't for you, Internet, we wouldn't have complete access to the truth on the scumbags that work for Fox news.
    Net Neutrality FTW.
  • trumpcard, on 06/08/2008, -20/+2I saw a digg article "Fox news got owned by Father Pfleger"

    Lmao turned out he was the one who got owned for his racist bigotry.Same will happen to this guy.
  • rescu911, on 06/08/2008, -2/+22It's sooo hard to keep acting when a master starts improvising the script. I mean, you can always go back and edit (Fox ALWAYS does), but when someone else is taping live it's just ... embarrassing.
  • dmbfan2007, on 06/08/2008, -25/+2Fox news does suck balls, but Barry has every right to completely disregard and downplay this internet journalism that these amateurs put together. They're trying to make a piece against Fox News production...honestly guys, do you have nothing better to do? Get a job.
    • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -1/+7how is what they were doing any different than what the fox news producer was doing?
    • johnkalel, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3That was the point of the post-Moyers portion of the video. The reporters were turning the ambush tables on ol' Porter. At that, it wasn't a complete surprise for Port. He got off easy.

  • flumkin, on 06/08/2008, -4/+29What a poor little punk Porter is. He's probably already considering a new career in the janitorial arts after that pathetic performance.

    Porter, journalism, ambush or otherwise, ain't your bag. Maybe scrubbing toilets is.
    • superjenn, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1"Do you consider yourself a journalist?"
      "Mr Moyers just called me one."

      I actually felt a little bad for him when all was said and done. Moyers is right: this guy is a lackey, being forced to do the dirty work. I don't approve of his agenda, but I do feel a little sorry for him in the aftermath of the final beatdown.
    • ultar6, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0Wrong. He'll have plenty of opportunities with "O'Reilly Factor Ambush Drone" on his resume.
  • datek2517, on 06/08/2008, -4/+53Sadly, I think that Moyers is a brilliant remnant of an age of journalism that has passed. I haven't seen much from the newer generations of journalists that I find worthy of praise...

    I really worry about the state of mainstream media. Moyers is an island sparkling in a sea of sludge becoming denser and dirtier every year.
    • ADVIZR, on 06/08/2008, -0/+10I worry too. At least we have his brilliance for as long as it still lasts.

      Bill Moyers Journal
      Every Friday, 9:30 ET on PBS, and archived on the web:
      http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/
    • inhaler, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I'm wondering if it's just me, but did you see the follow up reporter's camera woman? Running around with a CoolPix and her trendy cap on? For some reason I think real reporters don't have to "dress up" to gather news. I find the scenster fashion ***** disingenuous.
    • catkillcurious, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4"Moyers is an island sparkling in a sea of sludge becoming denser and dirtier every year."

      Oh, thats marvelous. Digg for you.
  • Griberal, on 06/08/2008, -23/+7So I guess this means that if O'Reilly comes on Moyers' show, he won't fellate him like he did Jeremiah Wright. I guess Moyers only gives liberal racists that type of treatment.
    • Jlaugh, on 06/08/2008, -4/+7So liberals are racists now. That's rich, who are they racist against?
      • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -7/+6generally speaking, white people :/
        • Jlaugh, on 06/08/2008, -4/+6So liberals who are white are racist against white people? I think the proper tern is classist, not racist. Well educated white people are classist, and have a hard time identifying with the less well off members of their own race. Upper class conservatives also have the same problem.
        • crc5779, on 06/08/2008, -7/+2You must realize the socialist slant your trying to push as reality. Class-ist? Really?
        • Jlaugh, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Socialism please, you claim that people who belong to clubs which membership dues cost more than most middle class people make in a year aren't being exclusive, and classist. Yet, at the same time you claim that "liberals" are racist against their own race. Come now you can do better than that. Racism is promoted by the upper class so you don't get together with other races to air your grievances. It's in place to make poor white people think their above the minorities.
        • crc5779, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I don't have a problem with people being exclusive. I (and you) do it all the time. I tend to hang out with people that have similar values and attitudes as me. That's not classism, that's not racism, that's basic nature of any living being, not just humans.

          Using the exclusivity of the exceedingly successful shows your underlying resentment of people who have money.

          Racism promoted by 'upper class'? Hardly! I don't know of the last time, or any time, that I've given much credence to a bigoted though of anyone, let alone a bigot with money.

          To make your claim even more absurd, most people with money are successful, intelligent people. Intelligent people aren't racist. You can look that up anywhere you like, but statistically speaking, the educated among us do not resort to racism.

          More likely, the ghosts of our countries racist past are used in populist politics to incite cynicism among those who are less able to decipher the truth.
      • NotedFuturist, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1White Guilt. Self Hatred. Check out those concepts. Expand your reality a little bit.

        HELL YES WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE! "We killed the red man and stole this country from him, we enslaved the black man and built this country on his stolen sweat, we tricked the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor so we could attack them with nukes, etc., etc, et ***** cetera."|
      • NotedFuturist, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1They are racist. Period. Against?
        This is a complex deal, see racism is against every race. If you create government programs to benefit minority population "races" then you create dependency, and stunt the growth of the selected "race". So you think you're helping them, but your not- it is the exact same thing as "separate but equal".
        There is also self hatred by the prosperous majority race members, that damages their "race".

        THERE IS ONE RACE. THE HUMAN RACE.
    • h3lx, on 06/08/2008, -4/+7What's really ***** is how many folks are quick to jump on the bashing Wright bandwagon without actually weighing the weight of his words. It's not a pretty message, the delivery is a bit tainted by whatever passions drive the man, but on whole... Wright is right. We are a racist culture, we are a biased society... if it's not in your neighborhood, I'd wager you could drive less than 10 miles and find it. If you're white, drive down to MLK Blvd in Dallas, if you're black, Go to West Plano. Latinos, catch the ***** on both ends... it's ***** and getting *****.


  • clippypog, on 06/08/2008, -13/+1LOL
    NOW
    If only there was an interview format program, somewhere, that could SHOW America how wrong
    Citizen O'Reilly and Murdoch are!
    a program, somehow, MORE equal than others!
    where average joe citizen would NEVER have to worry about a badgerin over opinions
  • Mohdoo, on 06/08/2008, -9/+27As long as there are trailer parks, there will be Wall mart
    As long as there are Republicans who believe Sadam Hussein planned 9/11, there will be Fox News.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/08/2008, -9/+6No one but you thinks Saddam Hussein planned 9/11, Ass. If you think the war in Iraq was about getting the guy that planned 9/11, you're an idiot. No one has EVER said that, anywhere, except accusations on anti-Bush liberal blog sites.

      SH was removed because he was financially supporting terrorists in many countries and allowing Al Qaida to use his territory for training facilities. He didn't claim, nor did anyone ever accuse him or any Iraqi of planning that attack.

      Buy a clue, moron. Oh, and its "Wal-Mart" not wall mart named after Sam WALton. If you are so ignorant you don't know these common facts, why would you think you should publicly spout your opinion?
      • publiclurker, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3There aw no Al Qaida in Iraq until your good pal decided to invade. since this is yet another one of the neocon lies used to support this illegal and immoral war, I'm not surprised you would be so quick to defend WalMart like a good little embittered redneck.
        • flip2trip, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3"There aw[sic] no Al Qaida[sic] in Iraq until your good pal decided to invade."

          Really? NONE? Get a clue and learn how to spell or at least click on the spell checker button, it's there use it!

        • boombye, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2There was none retard. They came in during our occupation. Bush used to go on tv and say "We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", using both our troops and the Iraqi citizens who were happy with us being there as bait to lure in foreign entities with terrorist allegiances. The linking of Saddam to Al Qaeda and Iraq previously being a haven for Al Qaeda before we invaded is ridiculous as both groups disliked each other to a great degree, and Osama has been known to speak out against Saddam and didn't like him at all.

          Now we got Fox news and Neo-Cons tries to act like Persians that live in Iran are the same as Arabs and trying to link Arab groups to the Iranians, when Iran isn't an Arab country. The people there descended from the Persians, and speak Farsi. But that's too much to comprehend for red necks.

          Osama hated Saddam, plus crap loads of Saddam's regime consisted of Christians, so it's not like he was a fanatical Muslim type, Saddam was just fanatical. Osama hated him for whatever reason. Now we got redneck media trying to paint this picture that somehow the Persians of Iran are propping up Arabian terrorist regimes. Iranians aren't even Arab, yet are constantly being tied to various Arab groups.

          It's like saying there's Puerto Ricans in the La Raza movement. It's like saying the Japanese Yakuza started in Romania. It doesn't make sense.
        • elipabst, on 06/09/2008, -2/+2"Really? NONE? "

          Ahh, yeah really, none. The closest they could get to claiming Iraq was harboring terrorists was a retired member of the Palestine Liberation Front, named Abu Abbas who was involved in the Achille Lauro incident in the 1980s. He has retired to Iraq and was laying low in Baghdad and even claiming Saddam was giving him refuge was a weak claim at best. In fact Israel had recently allowed him to visit Gaza and deemed him not to be a threat.
        • catbeller, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1They aren't there now, either.
      • otbeverly, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3My mother - age 62 - thinks Saddam Hussein planned 9/11. She also confuses SH and OBL, at times thinking they're the same person. No matter how many times I've gotten into shouting matches with her over the issue (along with other political issues), she still carries the same beliefs. She has many, many friends who likely believe the same as her, and with whom she shares and develops her misguided beliefs. She's also educated (earned a Master's degree) ... but quit thinking and educating herself at some point. Don't get me wrong. An avid consumer of media, she's also a faithful watcher of 60 Minutes each and every week (but somehow only watches; never listens). She is also an upper-middle class self-made businesswoman.

        This is just one example. You are SORELY mistaken if you think there is nobody out there who thinks Saddam Hussein perpetuaded 9/11. The example I provided is someone who should have the ability to decipher the truth, yet chooses not to. There are many who simply believe what they're told or what they think they hear and never entertain a varying opinion.
        • flip2trip, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1Shame on you shouting at your Grandmother--ever hear of respecting your elders?
        • otbeverly, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0Shame on your lack of reading comprehension.

          Second word in the paragraph is m-o-t-h-e-r. I don't think the word "grand" is even mentioned.
      • 1310nm, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4Curious though, Iraq/SH are portrayed as sponsors of terrorism, when in fact, al Qaeda offered the Saudis their forces against Saddam and Iraq. Now why would Iraq or Saddam sponsor al Qaeda? The real propaganda, which you've obviously not paid enough attention to, is that Iraq was a "destabilizing force" that was creating bio weapons that "could fall into the hands of terrorists". Were those weapons found? Fox thinks they were - after some chemicals were found in barrels in a warehouse, they claimed these were the weapons of mass destruction we were looking for. Anyway, you best be paying attention this time, because it's on again. http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq9Dmoiwxo
        • boombye, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Lols, they're even being linked to Arab groups when Iranians aren't even Arab.
    • Stevanoski, on 06/08/2008, -4/+8"As long as there are trailer parks, there will be Wall mart"

      Elitism is rife in the Democratic party. Many of these wal-mart folk are die hard Dem.s but the leaders of the party actually hate them, the NASCAR crowd or almost any working class whites.
      • publiclurker, on 06/08/2008, -3/+2:g/working class whites/s//racist redneck hicks/

        • Stevanoski, on 06/08/2008, -2/+5Point made.
        • siszam, on 06/09/2008, -2/+4So if you're white but not rich you're a redneck hick? Classist pig much?
      • Mohdoo, on 06/08/2008, -5/+3Yeah, like Obama right? He was born and raised a rich boy, right?
    • bradbaxter, on 06/08/2008, -9/+8Why is it that the liberals (who say they are for the poor and middle class) always the ones to degrade poor people who live in trailer parks... and also attempt to shame all those who would shop at a low-cost retailer, like Wal-Mart? Liberals are elitist who only pretend to care about the poor.
      • flip2trip, on 06/08/2008, -6/+4Bravo!!! You sir go to the head of the class.
      • siszam, on 06/09/2008, -3/+2One person did that. ONE. Liberals are the ones fighting for health care, the poor and all those other people that Jesus loves and many Republicans hate. I think people in general (right and left) have deep insecurities and tend to build themselves up by picking on those lease able to defend themselves. It's a societal problem exaggerated by greed. Greed has been pushed above decency for near eight years now.
    • jdefloris, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Oooh, you elitest! ;-)
    • Ihateliberals, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Mohdoo, as long as idiots like you that can't spell (it isn't Wall Mart you fool) and think for themselves, we will always have the drive-by media and their indoctrination into accepting socialism and hating the country as it is.

      By the way stupid, no one said that Saddam planned 9/11, but Obama, oops, I mean Osama bin Laden did. Saddam was trying to get nukes and constantly denied weapons inspectors, broke UN sanctions, and kept firing on our patrol craft in the no-fly zone. That, among many other reasons, is why we went into Iraq and kicked his ass. Did you know that they found something like 250 tons of the yellow cake uranium that your sources for the news never said he had, or Joe Wilson said that he didn't try to get from Niger? No, because your news sources can't possibly report that news because it exonerates Bush! Google it stupid, you may find the story hidden somewhere.

      How about a little research every now and then and stop listening to Bill Maher and John Daily, and using them as your "news sources." ***** dummy!
  • jaydoj, on 06/08/2008, -4/+71"Hey Porter"

    "Um, yeah?"

    "Did you hear that loud noise?"

    "Yeah, what was that?"

    "That was the sound of the tables turning."
  • MalachiConstant, on 06/08/2008, -3/+93"Bill is not a journalist. He's a pugilist."

    DUGG!
    • amoirae, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3O'Reilly is a pugilist in the same way Mike Tyson was versus Robin Givens.
    • jeliel, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2I second that
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.