He deals in the "lie of ommission" in his "stories". As you agree with him, you are not aware of "the rest of the story".

And no, he's not "respectful of the principle that, as Patrick Moynihan said, "You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.""...

...he demonstrates time and again that if another's "facts" don't agree with his set of "facts", the other's are automatically wrong -- and man of low character that he is, he doesn't address the difference -- he either ignores the other's "facts" (in his stories", or he charaterizes their beliefs for them (as in the story linked to above), thereby distorting their beliefs. That is the moral equivalent of a lie.

And his "facts" arrive to him pre-filtered. He hears what he wishes to hear -- "facts" that will reinforce what he already believes. That is why his self-appelation "journalist" is as laughable as calling Limbaugh a "journalist".

The difference (besides ideology) between Limbaugh and Moyers is style.