In an effort to contest the accuracy and incisiveness of Bill Moyers' observations, it is not sufficient to merely say that he was a member of the Johnson administration—as if that, by itself, were enough to negate the truth of what he says. This also ignores the fact that the Johnson administration, although it did get the United States involved in the Vietnam war, did quite a number of very good things. The following is an excerpt from a brief biography of Bill Moyers:

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962-63. When Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963–1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. When Walter Jenkins resigned from Johnson's staff in October 1964, Moyers became the President's informal chief of staff until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House Press Secretary. The details of his rift with Johnson have not been made public, but may be discussed in a forthcoming memoir.

In fairness, before condemning Moyers for his association with Lyndon Johnson, one might do well to try to learn more about the reason for the Moyers-Johnson disagreement.

As to Moyers' objectivity, if you, as a journalist—or even just someone who believes that the First Amendment is a good idea—become aware of the corporate bias of the American media, just how "objective" would you be? What is not "objective" about reporting verifiable facts? If you see a dam about to collapse and inundate the town, and you try to warn the townspeople, does this mean you not objective and are, therefore, to be ignored?

Good article

Don Firth