Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.

html

Support for PBS.org provided by: What's this?

June 29, 2007

ANNOUNCER: This week on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.

In Washington, big business and big money are writing the rules on trade....

LORI WALLACH: I'm an internationalist. I believe there are enormous benefits to

Our posts and your comments
trade. Question is, who writes the rules? Who do they benefit? And who's in
control of them?

ANNOUNCER: And, America's housing crisis reaches from main street to wall March 18, 2011
street...we go to the heart of it... Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Just a
Couple of More Things about NPR...
GRETCHEN MORGENSON: The lender in the old days kept the loan on the
balance sheet...Now this lender sells it to someone else. Not his problem anymore.
Gets the money back to make another loan....And they have no credit risk because
they have pawned off the loan on somebody else; it's somebody else's problem. "That's the really important thing about
"free speech"...you can figure out the
ANNOUNCER: And a conservative Republican wants his party back... HUGE DAMAGE th..." - Anna D

VICTOR GOLD: If you had told me and if you had told Barry Goldwater that we
would one day have and office in the White House called the Office of Faith-Based
initiative, what kind of Orwellian language is that? Faith Based initiative? That's
the office of religion.

ANNOUNCER: And Bill Moyers on Rupert Murdoch. On this edition of Bill Moyers
Journal. From our studio in New York...Bill Moyers.

1 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

BILL MOYERS: There were new developments in trade policy in Washington this
week that could effect you, your job and your income.

The White House and some democrats in congress claim to have created a historic
trade bill. Historic because for the first time it contains provisions to protect
workers and the environment. That depends, of course, on the fine print. In this
case, fine print written behind closed doors back in May, and kept secret at the
time. Some freshman members of Congress cried foul, saying they owed their
elections to voters fed up with unfair free trade.

REP. STEVE KAGEN (D - WI): We are now operating under a flawed model. Until
that model is fixed, our Nation's jobs and the livelihoods of our constituents are in
jeopardy. It's time that the United States of America begins shipping our values
overseas and not our jobs.

BILL MOYERS: Earlier this week, and without fanfare, the fine print was released.
Let's see what it means in plain English. Lori Wallach runs the Global Trade Watch
Office of Public Citizen, the public interest watchdog in Washington. A Harvard-
trained lawyer, she's been through many fights over trade and is known around
town as the Guerilla Warrior in battles over globalization and its effects on
workers. She's the author of this book: WHOSE TRADE ORGANIZATION? Good to
see you.

LORI WALLACH: Good to see you.

BILL MOYERS: What's going on with these trade agreements this week?

LORI WALLACH: We've had a deal this week, new legal text, to expand NAFTA to
two, if not four more countries, bizarrely signed off by some Democrats.
Expanding these agreements, even with the much-improved labor and
environmental standards, is gonna be a net loss for jobs, downward pressure on
wages, more unsafe imported food and products. These are not the kind of
agreements the American public stood up and voted for. The good news is, they
got the administration to agree to add into the agreement's text, binding labor
and environmental standards.

LORI WALLACH: The hitch is -- they put those on top of the old NAFTA or CAFTA,
Central America Free Trade Agreement, model. So, it's sorta like this. You take a
building that you found to be condemned. Foundation's gone. Wall's ca-- cavin' in.
You would not wanna go in there. And then you put a new roof on it. And of
course, you say, "Well, you have to fix that building before you put the roof on or
it's still comin' down on your head." That's the deal that they cut. So, I want the
new roof in every trade agreement in the future. Can't walk into that building
without gettin' my wages crushed.

BILL MOYERS: Why should people out there across the country pay attention to
what's happening in Congress on trade right now? What-- what's at stake?

LORI WALLACH: We've unfortunately seen, because of having all this experience
with the NAFTA model, what these agreements have proved to do, not my
speculation, lived experience...

BILL MOYERS: Such as?

2 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

LORI WALLACH: Pressured down U.S. wages; 'cause we're basically setting-up
the scenario where we open up for competition, really labor arbitrage, our workers
against workers who make on the high end in Mexico, $6 a day but a dollar a day
in China. So, our wages, even if your job doesn't leave, the biggest effect, and the
economists agree with this, of trade, is pushing down all of our wages. Then
there's the job loss. We lost three million manufacturing jobs during NAFTA.
That's one--

BILL MOYERS: Since--

LORI WALLACH: --out of every six.

BILL MOYERS: --since 1992?

LORI WALLACH: One out of every six.

BILL MOYERS: But we've gained jobs with imports coming in, and American
workers en-- engaged in-- in-- and trade, right?

LORI WALLACH: Well, this has to do with the wages. Trade doesn't affect the
total number of jobs in the economy. It affects the kinds of jobs. So, we have sent
out good jobs that pay higher wages. And we've increased service sector jobs that
don't have benefits and that don't have wages. And so overall, U.S. median wages
in real terms, so what you can buy, adjusted from inflation, are now at 1974
levels, despite worker productivity increasing by double. So, how much U.S.
worker produces has doubled. Our wages are like they were in the '70s.

BILL MOYERS: So, people are working harder but they're earning less. That is,
ordinary workers?

LORI WALLACH: Yes, sir.

BILL MOYERS: Will these new agreements curtail to any effect, the shipping of
jobs overseas?

LORI WALLACH: Well, this is the tragedy. Because in the agreements, the stuff
that didn't get changed are the core NAFTA/CAFTA provisions, that actually--

BILL MOYERS: CAFTA is the--

LORI WALLACH: Central American Free Trade Agreement.

BILL MOYERS: Which followed up the NAFTA agreement in ninety--

LORI WALLACH: Basically, NAFTA on steroids with six more countries. That
model has a core of rules that literally promote, incentivize shipping jobs away.
companies went to Canada during NAFTA, even though the wages were higher,
'cause they got better treatment. You do better if you leave. Those rules, not
touched by the deal that's facilitating passage of the Peru and Panama
agreements. Procurement rules, limits under domestic procurement policies that
ban by America law, by local preferences, ban anti-offshoring law. Why would that
be in the trade agreement? That's undermining jobs directly.

BILL MOYERS: Aright. So, why is it in the trade agreement?

3 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

LORI WALLACH: Well meanwhile, the Labor and Environmental standards that
they added, though they're great on paper, they require President Bush to enforce
them. So, you have a guy who's shown a record of really, which is we'll say a
callous disregard for environmental and labor standards, would have to act to
make those rules mean anything. But the stuff they left in the agreement is
automatically enforceable of sending jobs overseas.

BILL MOYERS: So, I understand you to be saying that there is in language, some
improvement--

LORI WALLACH: Yes, sir.

BILL MOYERS: For workers and the environment - but that it's the White House,
under President Bush or whomever succeeds him, who would enforce if Congress
passes it off and says, "You decide how this fine print is interpreted," in fact?

LORI WALLACH: The way the language works, it basically says countries should
not fail to enforce their laws that they're required to meet, which for the first time,
includes certain core labor standards. The problem is, you have to take an action if
a country's not enforcing, to make them enforce. So, if President Bush basically
spends all this time trying to weaken our domestic labor laws and not enforce
those, do we really think he's going to use an international agreement to go make
another country actually match its laws?

BILL MOYERS: But this-- this agreement-- these agreements were negotiated in
the house by Charles Rangel, who's a Democrat, who's the chairman of the-- of
the Ways and Means Committee -a very powerful committee. And he was quoted
yesterday as saying that-- up to 50 Democrats will vote with the Republican
minority to pass it. I mean, that's a quarter of the Democratic caucus, right?

LORI WALLACH: Well, and yes, sir, that's kinda the heartbreak; 'cause if you
think about what he's saying in translated, what they're talking about is reviving
Bush's NAFTA expansion agenda to facilitate passage of more Bush job-killing
trade agreements by a majority of the Republican minority, and a small minority
of the Democratic majority. It's really inconceivable why the Democrats would
then bring that up to pass Bush's trade agenda opposed by their entire base, by
two-thirds of their members of Congress, by the public according to the last
election. Instead of going to their own trade agenda, they're reviving his. And
reviving with a minority support of the Democrats.

BILL MOYERS: Well, help us understand this. Because last fall in the November
election, the Democratic base in these communities across the country were on
the warpath, right, about trade. The polls I saw coming out of a lot of cons--
districts had next to the war-- trade was most on the mind of voters in-- in
Midwestern-- districts and places like that, that had been affected adversely by
NAFTA. So, what is-- what's happening?

LORI WALLACH: Well, what's amazing is, it wasn't just Midwestern. That's what
we probably expect. It was all over. The Democrats are in the majority to no small
measure because of the members of Congress all over the country. Democratic
freshmen ran on this issue. Being against the war was necessary. It wasn't
sufficient. The economic, really, populism issues of standing up for working
Americans by pushing for a new trade agreement and holding accountable the

4 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

Republican incumbents voted for NAFTA and CAFTA, that's what won those
majority-making seats.

BILL MOYERS: So, what's happened? Maybe there are Democrats who believe
in-- in these agreements.

LORI WALLACH: Well, politically, it's a catastrophe, 'cause they could lose their
majority over this, just the way after NAFTA they blurred the lines in economics.
And in 1994, the Democrats lost their seats, a lot of research afterwards showed
NAFTA was one of the main factors.

BILL MOYERS: I remember that.

LORI WALLACH: On policy though, it's inconceivable also what they're doing.
Because even though it was terrific they added the labor and new environmental
standards, not excising the outrageous NAFTA/CAFTA core means they set up
agreements that totally contradict the core Democratic agenda. What are the
Democrats pushing? Good jobs with good wages, access to affordable, quality
services: health care, education, a clean environment, safe food, not privatizing
social security. Yet, in these agreements, which are only a little bit about trade,
there are thousands of pages of rules that we have to conform all of our domestic
laws to, are the antithesis of that domestic agenda.

BILL MOYERS: We've seen recently how vulnerable we Americans are to goods
brought in from abroad. We had the toothpaste scandal a few weeks ago, tainted
toothpaste from China. And just yesterday in the New York Times, big story:
"Wider sales seen for toothpaste tainted in China. After federal health officials
discovered last month that tainted Chinese toothpaste had entered the United
States". Do these new agreements deal with this issue of tainted food and tainted
product coming in from China and other places?

LORI WALLACH: In the midst of this crisis, and let me talk about crisis my
nephew's having to have their Thomas the Tank engines covered in lead paint
from China taken away. That was the recall from two weeks ago of China products,
was everyone's toy trains. It's food. It's products. Now, it's tires from China. All of
that requires serious redress.

The trade agreements that we're talking about actually will limit the U.S. right to
inspect. For instance, on meat. We're required to import meat that literally doesn't
meet our standards. If it's considered equivalent by the importing country, i.e. the
people trying to sell it to us. We're supposed to accept it, put on the USDA label,
bon appetit. It's enough to make a person a vegan. We need basically a whole
new set of strong rules. And instead, the trade agreements handcuffed Congress
from doing what's needed.

BILL MOYERS: This very weekend, Fast Track, the provision that gives the
President, any President, the power to negotiate and conclude treaties without the
approval of Congress, expires. Is--

LORI WALLACH: And hallelujah for that.

BILL MOYERS: Hallelujah? Why?

LORI WALLACH: Fast Track, which was hatched by Richard Nixon in the early
'70s is a uniquely undemocratic mechanism that's used to negotiate U.S. trade

5 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

agreements. It is what enabled bad-news trade agreements like NAFTA, like the
World Trade Organization. What Fast Track does is, it takes the Constitutional
exclusive authority of Congress that the founders set up intentionally as a check
and balance so that one President just couldn't take off with our trade future, and
delegates the whole thing, lump sum, well, over to the President.

So, the President, under Fast Track, can pick what countries we're negotiating
with, set the substance, sign the agreement, all without Congress ever voting. So
that by the time Congress sees it, they get nothing but a yes-or-no vote, no
amendments allowed on trade agreements that will set our whole future,
thousands of pages. And they have to vote 60 days after the bill's in. It's like a
legislative luge run. It doesn't matter what you put on there. Sheer force of
gravity takes the worst trade agreement right to Congress and right through--
your community, rolling right over your jobs and your food safety. And so, a new
way of making trade agreements that doesn't consolidate so much power in the
President, and by the way, that system also designates 500 corporate advisors to
be the official advisors.

BILL MOYERS: The old sys-- the present system--

LORI WALLACH: Fast Track-- Fast Track-- so it's no doubt we get these very
retrograde agreements that don't benefit us. So, we need a new way to make
trade agreements. And the fact that Fast Track's finally sun setting, I say
hallelujah, we very festive wake. It's about 20 years overdue. It should be boxed
and buried, go to the Smithsonian. It's outdated technology.

BILL MOYERS: When will these issues be resolved, these present trade
agreements that are now being discussed, when will they be resolved?

LORI WALLACH: Well, let me say first, many of us still pray that the Democratic
leadership will see the imminent cliff and decide to turn around the bus instead of
going over. If they proceed towards trying to pass these Bush trade agreements
with a minority of the majority, the votes could happen either in the month of July
or in the first coupla weeks of September.

BILL MOYERS: We know you oppose NAFTA, oppose CAFTA under the rules that
were in play then. We know there's a lotta concern in the country about this. What
can ordinary people across the country do about-- about what's happening in--
in-- in Washington right now, on trade, whether they're for or against what's
happening?

LORI WALLACH: Well, the first thing to keep in mind is, these agreements did
not come down from God. From Mt. Sinai did not come in extra tablet called
NAFTA. These are just the choice and policies of particular people. So, number
one, get informed about what it is. It's not inevitable. It's not . It's one version.
Number two-- and you can do that at our website, TradeWatch.org. Lots--

BILL MOYERS: We'll--

LORI WALLACH: --of analysis.

BILL MOYERS: --we'll link to that on PBS.org.

LORI WALLACH: And it's everything from full-length, multi-footnote reports to

just a fact sheet about what does it mean for your family's food. Second thing,

6 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

though, is whatever your opinion is, 'cause you should make one, this is important
for your future, go talk to your members of Congress about it. Go talk in your
community. Talk to-

BILL MOYERS: They're coming home next week, Fourth of July.

LORI WALLACH: Next week is open season, in the sense that you don't need a
written appointment. They'll be in parades. As they're waving to you, come on up,
shake their head. Give 'em your sense of what you want them to do or no, but
what you think about these agreements, what you want, what you don't want,
what your concerns are.

BILL MOYERS: Lori Wallach, we'll be having you back as this battle continues
through the fall.

BILL MOYERS: It was very hot here in New York this week. We even had some
power outages. But down on Wall Street, worried brokers and bankers were
talking about a different kind of meltdown. Its cause is not global warming and
high temperatures but the housing market. Look at these headlines. The giant
investment firm of Bear Stearns is in trouble. Two of its high-flying hedge funds
said to be on the verge of collapse. There were even rumors in the press that Bear
Stearns is just the tip of the iceberg, that many investment firms took a gamble
on what bankers and brokers call subprime mortgages and now wish they hadn't.
Because all across the country we're seeing rates of foreclosure and delinquency
shoot up. When times were good, these adjustable rate loans helped people move
into the houses they wanted. But as interest rates have climbed, so have
mortgage payments jumped so high that many people can't pay them back. At
the same time, so many new homes were built that there's a glut: more homes for
sale than buyers to buy them.

So the woes on Main Street reach back to Wall Street and vice versa. That's
behind the fear of a financial meltdown. Gretchen Morgenson covers the financial
world for the New York Times. A former stockbroker, she's now a columnist and
assistant business and financial editor at the Times. She won the Pulitzer Prize in
2002 for her trenchant and incisive coverage of Wall Street. Welcome to The
Journal.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Thanks, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: You ended your column this week saying, "Hold onto your hat. It's
going to be an interesting summer." So I'm holding onto my grandson Henry's hat
because it's the one I have. He's here this week. Why should I hold onto it?
What's going to happen?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: We're just starting to see, I think, the shaky ground
that is the result of what you just described, which was excessive amounts of
loans made to people who could not afford them and excessive amounts of money
thrown into the mortgage arena by investors who were very eager for
high-yielding investments. I think it was a mania. It fed the real estate mania, the
real estate bubble in many parts of the country.

BILL MOYERS: Is it conceivable to you that Bear Stearns and some of these other
firms could trigger, in fact, a meltdown, a falling domino all the way through the

7 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

economic cycle that everybody would be affected by this?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Well, I think the economy is already being affected by

it, Bill, because real estate has been such a driver. The increase in home prices
was such a driver of the economy for so long. You know, people were withdrawing
equity from their homes. As they saw the value of their homes go up, they were
taking them out. They were using them like an ATM, cashing out that equity and
going to Europe on a vacation, maybe buying a second home. It was a way for the
consumer to cash out of what he or she saw was an escalating asset. And that
drove a lot of consumer spending. You're seeing it in the home builder stocks that
are down. You're seeing it in Home Depot, companies like that that are not having
the, you know, revenues and earnings that they did because people are not--
they're pulling back now. They're not buying the second home. They're trying to
get rid of the second home. So it's already started to affect the economy in the
overall.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, it's one thing for a homeowner out there in New Jersey or
Denver or Dubuque to have to foreclose. Sad, personal tragedy. But what makes
that and what makes Bear Stearns create what the New York Times editorial said
is "a dangerous financial time"?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: So many things. But one thing is in the old days when
you borrowed to buy a home, you had a one-on-one relationship with your banker.
The banker knew you. You knew the banker. He knew or she knew whether you
were money good on that loan. And it--

BILL MOYERS: That you could pay it back.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: And that you could pay it back. And you would have a
relationship with that person. Now, who knows who owns your loan? Wall Street
has come up with this wonderful system of packaging mortgages into big, huge
pools of thousands of mortgages. Slicing them up, cutting them up, and selling
them to investors. I've talked to lawyers who are trying to help people out who are
in foreclosure who can't even identify who owns the loan.

BILL MOYERS: So somebody lends money to a home buyer who's not a good
credit risk, who can't really pay it back. But then that lender, as I understand it,
sells the loan to Wall Street. And the lender walks away.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Correct. Correct.

BILL MOYERS: And that just escalates with a lot of people doing it?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: It feeds into this idea that we need to make more
loans. The lender in the old days kept the loan on the balance sheet, had an
interest in seeing that it was repaid. Now this lender sells it to someone else. Not
his problem anymore. Gets the money back to make another loan. The lenders
now are more interested in earning the fees associated with the mortgages, which
are extremely lucrative. And they have no credit risk because they have pawned
off the loan on somebody else; it's somebody else's problem. That helped to feed
this mania for mortgage produ-- mortgage securities that then played into this
idea of giving a mortgage to anybody who was ambulatory.

8 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

BILL MOYERS: No questions asked.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: No questions asked.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: We had a situation where they would give money to

people who could not document their income, who could not provide a down
payment. Then you would have second loans on top of those loans which they call
silent seconds or piggy-backs. There was so much money around, Bill, that
seeking, you know-- looking for a way to be deployed--

BILL MOYERS: To earn interest.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: --to earn interest.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, to earn inter-- right.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: There was so much money around that they just
threw it at anybody.

BILL MOYERS: The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney
Frank said on television this week that it's a pretty simple matter. Don't lend
money beyond what they can expect to pay and don't lend money without
verifying what people can pay back. That's pretty good advice, isn't it? Why don't
they follow it?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Sounds pretty simple, right? Well, why didn't they
follow it? Because there was so much money to be made in fees by not following
it. Throw money at people who can't pay their loan back. It won't matter. I'm not
going to own the loan. I'm not going to have it. It'll be somebody else's problem
by the time it comes a cropper.

BILL MOYERS: So what's the effect down on Main Street? When you look out
across the country, what does this mean to ordinary folks?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: I think we're going to have a protracted decline in real

estate prices. And whether or not it depends what your circumstance is. Each
person's different. Do they have equity in their home? Then they don't have to
worry so much. If they don't have equity in their home and they have a mortgage
that's going to reset at a higher rate because interest rates have risen, maybe
they can't afford the mortgage anymore. Maybe their house is going to go on the
market. It's going to be a long, unwinding process. It's not going to be pretty. It's
going to have a negative or a pressure effect on real estate. Continued. We've
already seen it to some degree. And I just think that people are going to be less
willing to take risk. And that will extend into the corporate bond market, the
ability for companies to raise money, their interest costs will go up. They'll have to
pay investors more because investors are going to say, "Wait a minute. I'm afraid
of risk here. I'm going to demand more money for my investment dollar."
Companies will have to pay more. It's going to have a major impact.

BILL MOYERS: So who's responsible for this fiasco?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Wall Street is responsible. Investors, to some degree,

are responsible. They were clamoring for yield. They wanted more return on their

9 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

investments. Regulators were asleep at the switch. Bond rating agencies were
asleep at the switch. They're supposed to be out there telling people this is a solid
company or this is a solid loan or this is not. There were a lot, a lot of fail safes
that failed.

BILL MOYERS: Who's supposed to be minding the store?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Well, that's the problem. Again, we have a situation

where there are regulatory loopholes or cracks in the system that allow this kind of
speculation to take place. First of all, in the old days, a banker had to, of course,
respond to his regulator and had to have the proper implementation of rules and
regulations. Now we have mortgage brokers that are not regulated by anyone. We
have mortgage appraisers who might have an interest in jacking up an appraisal
on a property to get a fee. They're not regulated by anybody. So we have these
cracks in the regulatory net that have allowed this mania to really go on.

BILL MOYERS: But where's the Fed in all this? I mean I was in Washington a
number of years. The Fed had an office of banking. Its job, its mission was to try
to make sure that there was some due diligence and some oversight of this kind of
process. What's happened to that?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Well, the Fed is interested in the safety and

soundness of the financial system, okay? And so in this particular situation, you
have loans that are being made, then securitized, made into securities sold on
Wall Street. So the bank is not at risk necessarily as much as it was in the old
days when a bank might make a bad loan. Now it's the investor who owns the
loan. The Fed is not about protecting investors. That's the Securities and
Exchange Commission's job. So it's changed the whole way that mortgages are
now sold, underwritten by banks and then securities firms has changed the entire
makeup of this market, turned it into a mania, and now we're feeling the ill effects
of the unwinding.

BILL MOYERS: Was Washington feeding this, fueling this, or welcoming this? I
mean, after all, it is a good thing when people can buy homes that they couldn't
afford otherwise. So if you're a politician there and people are happy in your
district because they're buying a house, you'd feel pretty good about that, right?
You're not going to say no to the gravy truck.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Absolutely. And it's been a policy of the government

to try to encourage home ownership. And under-- with this mania, with the
subprime loans that were going on, we did reach a peak in home ownership of 69
percent.

BILL MOYERS: Right. The highest in history.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: The highest in history. But I would ask you, "What's
the good of getting people into a home if they can't afford it and they're then
going to have to go into foreclosure?" It goes back to the idea of suitability. Are
these loans suitable to the people that you're giving them to? Are these
investments suitable to the investors who are buying them? There seem to have
been a breakdown in that question.

BILL MOYERS: Is there anything anybody can do? The government? More

10 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

regulation? What?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: I'm not really a fan of more regulation when the
existing one didn't work. I think smart regulation is the answer here. I think what
you alluded to earlier is a really important point. In the securities industry, in Wall
Street, when you buy a stock, you are supposed to-- your stock broker's supposed
to say, "Bill, is that an appropriate stock for someone of your income? Your age?
Your needs? Your-- you know, what are you looking for?"

You're not supposed to buy a sketchy stock if you're a person who only wants
safety. Why can't we have that same kind of an idea with a mortgage? Is this
mortgage product appropriate for you? In the securities laws it's called "know your
customer." It's called-- you know-- is it appropriate for you? I think we need
something like that--

BILL MOYERS: Because it--

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: --in lending.

BILL MOYERS: --doesn't the government have to ask it?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: No.

BILL MOYERS: Who does?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: It's left up to the bank, to the lender, to the mortgage
broker, and that--

BILL MOYERS: Bear Stearns?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: To the hedge funds that Bear--

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: But I mean, look what they've been doing. Their past experience
is no indication that they will respond to what you're saying.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Only if they're held accountable.

BILL MOYERS: By?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: And if they have to pay the bill that comes a cropper.
Let's not make it a bail out where the taxpayer bails out Wall Street, please.

BILL MOYERS: Then Wall Street would be the winner and--

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Then Wall Street would say, "Fine. I'll go do that
again. I'll go throw money at a problem and let it blow up, and I don't mind."

BILL MOYERS: Does this contribute to what you and I both know are-- is growing
inequality in the country? The gap between the rich and the poor? The greatest

11 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

gap since 1929? Is this contributing to that gap?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: To the degree that Wall Street made an awful, awful
lot of money on these securities, yes, it contributes to that gap. To people who
work on Wall Street, you saw the enormous bonuses, the enormous payouts to the
CEOs of these firms. Absolutely. The mortgage mania contributed to that. The
little guy doesn't have the benefit of all the powerful friends in Washington and
the powerful friends on Wall Street. The little guy is just trying to be able to retire
comfortably and not have to scrimp and worry about money. And he and she have
a right to that. And if we're in an ownership society that's ballyhooed around, that
should be a benefit. That should be who wins. But unfortunately, the little guy is
the guy that's usually the bag holder.

BILL MOYERS: Are we living in a new gilded age?

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Absolutely. A new gilded age. Except this time

around, instead of when we had Vanderbilts and Goulds and Morgans and pick
your name, building--

BILL MOYERS: Rockefellers.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: --physical assets that produced goods that people

bought or transported--

BILL MOYERS: Railroads-- railroad steel firms.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: --goods. Correct.

BILL MOYERS: Right? Right.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Now, this gilded age is all about pushing paper
around and making money on money.

BILL MOYERS: Financial engineering.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Financial engineering. Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: Well thank you very much Gretchen Morgenson.

GRETCHEN MORGENSON: Anytime.

BILL MOYERS: The gentleman you're about to meet is someone I'm also meeting
for the first time, although we started in national politics in the same year long
ago. And therein lies a story. Back in 1960 Vic Gold and I were both young
idealists, and we both voted for John F. Kennedy for president.

Except for our awe of the Alabama football legend Bear Bryant, that's probably the
last time we ever agreed on anything until now. What we have in common now is
the belief that politics ain't what it used to be. I went on to serve in the Kennedy
administration and then in the White House as LBJ's assistant in 1964 during the
presidential campaign against the conservative Barry Goldwater.

BARRY GOLDWATER: It is a cause of Republicanism to ensure that power

12 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

remains in the hands of the people and so help us God that is exactly what a
Republican president will do with the help of a Republican Congress.

There across the political divide from me in that campaign was Vic Gold, who had
become a speech writer and advisor to Goldwater. Goldwater won the nomination
and lost the election. But the end of his campaign was the beginning of the
modern conservative movement which came to power with Ronald Reagan and
was consumated with George W. Bush. Vic Gold has never forgiven me for the
television ads we ran against his candidate. That was 1964. I left the White House
three years later to atone for my sins, as Vic Gold might put it, and have been in
journalism ever since.

Vic Gold went into public relations and to soldier other Republican campaigns. He
worked with Richard Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew, in 1970 when Agnew
took after journalists. He called us " nattering nabobs of negativism." I didn't take
it personally, Vic. Along the way, Vic Gold became a confidante of the first George
Bush, helping in his campaigns and in the writing of the soon-to-be president's
autobiography Looking Forward in 1987. He even wrote a political satire with his
old friend Lynn Cheney, the vice-president's wife, called The Body Politic.

Now, however, this long-time Republican insider has written a book with a title
that almost all of us who started in politics no matter our party affiliation wish we
had claimed first. Because sooner or later, most of us think the party of our youth
has fallen into the wrong hands. Look at that title: Invasion of the Party
Snatchers. In Vic Gold's case, the subtitle says it all: How the Holy Rollers and the
Neocons Destroyed the GOP. Vic Gold, it's good to meet you after all these years.

VICTOR GOLD: Good to see you.

BILL MOYERS: Do you remember what Pete Hamill said about Barry Goldwater?
The very liberal journalist from New York who had been quite critical of him?

VICTOR GOLD: I would like to say that this is the first time I've said this
publicly. It was really Pete Hamill that inspired this book.

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you exactly what you quote Pete Hamill as saying in
your book. "No democracy can survive if it is wormy with lies and evasions. That is
why we must cherish those people who have the guts to speak the truth:
mavericks, whistleblowers, disturbers of the public peace. And it's why in spite of
my own continuing, though chastened, liberal faith, I miss Barry Goldwater more
than ever."

VICTOR GOLD: I don't know Pete Hamill. I have never met Pete Hamill. But what
was going on in the Republican Party and what was going on in American politics
was getting to me. And when I read that in the LA Times, the quote that Pete
Hamill said, 'God, I wish we had a Barry Goldwater around now', and I said, "By
God, he's right." And I worked for this guy. I am going to write something about
why have we left this type of principle.

BILL MOYERS: I never met Barry Goldwater. Back in 1964 he was just the guy
on the other side to beat. I mean, we did see him as shooting from the hip, as
mobilizing the fringe, even mobilizing the old Confederacy, in being what we
thought was on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. But I came, in the

13 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

years to follow, to admire his candor. Who's speaking like Barry Goldwater today?

VICTOR GOLD: I don't know if a Barry Goldwater could exist in today's political--

BILL MOYERS: Why?

VICTOR GOLD: Because the impact of the sound bite mentality, the appealing to
the base, which you find in both parties. The reason is there's been a debasing, no
pun intended, of the system because if you listen to-- if you look these-- I call
them the Stepford candidates on both sides in these debates. Isn't it interesting?
The only two candidates that speak clearly, you see, are the ones they call the
kooks. On the Democratic side they ask Mike Gravel a question and he goes, "Do
you think Ameri-- English should be the official language?" He said, "Yes." And the
rest of them say, "No, not the official language, the national language." I said,
"Well, what the devil is the national lang"-- I mean, why don't you just say "no"?
And on the Republican side you have Ron Paul, who was the only candidate who is
antiwar and pro-civil liberties. That is he opposes what this administration is doing
in terms of civil liberties. And they call him a kook. That's the closest thing you
can get. So you can imagine Senator Goldwater, if he were-- he'd probably throw
up his hands at the whole process and not run. Which-

BILL MOYERS: Why is it people running for office can't speak their mind today?

VICTOR GOLD: It's the system that we have reduces -- when you go out-- if you
have to win Iowa, that means you have to come out for ethanol. And if you come
out and say, "I don't believe in it," that finishes you. And so if you want to be a
candidate, you compromise there. Then you've got to go over to New Hampshire
and you've got to sign a pledge: No taxes. If you didn't-- if you don't say "no
taxes," you're going to lose New Hampshire. You get killed there. And then you
will not make the cover of Time and Newsweek and that'll ruin. So that's what
does it.

BILL MOYERS: You said you wrote this book because you were angry. Why? Why
were you angry?

VICTOR GOLD: Goldwater did seem to be a clarion voice, a clear voice. What did
Goldwater and the conservative movement at that time stand for? They stood for
limited government. Now, when I say "limited government," I mean limited power
of government. What Arthur Schlesinger ultimately came up and discovered was
the imperial presidency under Nixon. What Nixon did I didn't like was he picked
up what Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy had done in terms of the imperial--
what I consider the imperialization of the presidency and continued and expanded
it. I thought that the Republican Party of Goldwater that believed in it and
believed, if I may say, in terms of our foreign policy of-- to use a discredited
phrase, not America first in terms of 1939 but America in terms of its national
interests and the fact that we would not be policemen for the world. And we this--
the neocons and the religious right have taken the party from that phrase.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you feel so threatened by what you call the holy rollers
and the neocons?

VICTOR GOLD: I am a non-conformist. I have always been a non-conformist.

When I was with Goldwater, I was a non-conformist. And maybe some people

14 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

might not have thought that, but we always-- we thought the conformists were on
the other side. The fact is that what the religious right demands is conformity.
They would like to establish, or I may say, they-- a theocracy, purely and simply,
a theocracy. That bothers me because this is the old fight that we've had that
goes back centuries between religion, church, and state. And up till now we've
had a separation of that and I think our founding fathers have had a separation of
that. But these people want to merge it. The paradox is that the neocons, they are
not religious.

VICTOR GOLD: Oh, but they have a mission. A benevolent hegemony. They think
we have a moral mission in the world. The United States is the leading nation in
the world, it's the superpower in the world, has a moral mission. The French have
the mission to civilize. We have the mission to democratize. And if we don't, we--
our mission in Iraq or in Iran is to bring freedom to these people. So you're--
you're right to. And by the way, you check a lot of these neocons, they're also
theocons. You check the Weekly Standard in terms of its position on the theo-- on
the theocon of the religious right issue.

BILL MOYERS: Well, they've used each other, right?

VICTOR GOLD: They've used each other but they take the same position. But the
fact is these people establish a benevolent hegem-- a benevolent hegemony is the
word that's used in terms of how we're going to assert, we're going to
democratize. We're going to teach these people the ways all over the world the
way it should be.

BILL MOYERS: I still have in my files the article that Barry Goldwater wrote in
1994 where he said: "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt
anyone else in the process. The radical right," said Barry Goldwater, "has nearly
ruined our party." That was 1994, 13 years ago. What's your explanation for how
this happened?

VICTOR GOLD: The interesting thing was if you go back to the Goldwater
campaign and see its speeches, the word "spiritual," the spiritual side of man is
very much in every speech. At that time there was argument against a material,
the idea of which he accused President Johnson and the Johnson administration
being materialistic. The spiritual-- he spoke of the whole man. So he used the
word "spiritual" and he used the word "God." But what happened was when it
came to the line of injecting a religious belief of putting-- what we're talking
about, it's-- keeping government out of the boardroom every Republican
conservative understands. What they don't seem to understand is keeping
politics-- keeping government out of the bedroom and private lives. Goldwater
understood that. If you had told me and if you had told Barry Goldwater that we
would one day have an office in the White House called the Office of Faith-based
Initiative, what kind of Orwellian language is that? Faith-based initiative? That's
the Office of Religion. The Office of Religious Outreach. What-- how do you put
that in the White House? It's not simply a separation of church and state. I'm
talking about a separation of church and politics.

BILL MOYERS: The Terry Schiavo case seems to have been a turning point in all
of this. Don't you-- that seems to be a moment at which people like you really
began to be aroused that-- that the religious right would bring that issue so

15 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

powerfully into the White House.

VICTOR GOLD: Well, think of what it was aside from the emotional aside. Think
of what it meant constitutionally and in terms of conservative principles. One of
the things-- and the hypocrisy of the Tom Delays and the people who brought
that-- the cry has always been activist judges. We don't want these activist
judges interfering. All right. What they wanted to do and also the principle of
federal government over state. Here you had state courts that ruled on the thing.
Congress under the quote, Republicans, unquote, passes a law which takes a case
out of state jurisdiction and turns it over to the federal court. The president, who
didn't have time to fly-- to come to New Orleans at the time of Katrina right
quickly, flew back from Crawford, Texas, to sign this bill. They sign a bill which
assign-- takes the case out of state hands and puts it into federal hands. Now,
they turn it over to a federal court that says, "We don't want this case. We don't
want this case." And the pitiful thing was they take this personal family tragedy
and elevate it a national case.

BILL MOYERS: I'm intrigued by the fact that as Goldwater began to unfold his
views over the years and I had left politics and he was saying things like he was
supporting the rights of gay men and women. He was voting consistently for Roe
versus Wade. He was talking about the separation of church and state, which he
respected. He was concerned, as many of us were, about the religious right. I
began to say, "Who's the conservative here and who's the liberal?" So my
question is, "What happened to those Goldwater Republicans?" Did they leave
him?

VICTOR GOLD: No, they didn't leave him. They now feel we can't win an election
unless we have the theoconservatives, the religious right with us. We can't win an
election unless we have-- these are our ground troops. These are our storm-- but
when you take them in, when you take them in, it changes the character of the
party. You win but do you win-- do you win on any principle that you stood for?

BILL MOYERS: Well, they won twice, 2000, 2004.

VICTOR GOLD: They won. You said, "They won." That's I think a lot of
conservatives like me have discovered. I voted for George Bush in the year 2000.
And a lot-- in 2006 you found out a lot of defection. Like, I opened the book by
saying I was actually rooting, and I wasn't the only one, there were a lot of people
like me, conservative Republicans like me, wanted to lose and who want-- feel we
have to go back--it's best to lose and go back and reform-- reform what we
believe in.

BILL MOYERS: Back in 2001, you wrote the profile of the new vice-president for
the official inauguration program. You wrote, quote, speaking of Cheney, "a man
of gravitas with a quick and easy wit, a conservative who will see a road less
traveled, a political realist who sees his country and the world around him not in
terms of leaden problems but golden opportunities."

VICTOR GOLD: That's the person I knew. I mean, I wasn't writing bull. I mean,
that wasn't just putting on .

BILL MOYERS: So what do you think happened?

16 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

VICTOR GOLD: That is one of the great mysteries. I quote Madam Destaile in the
thing. Men do not change; they unmask themselves. As you know, power can
change people. I mean, you know, this-- when I was in the Army I remember
when I got my sergeant stripes they say, "Now we're going to find out what kind
of person you are." Are you going to be a, you know, lord it over people or whether
you're going to change. Man becomes vice-president of the United States. Maybe
all this-- it's been a very good masquerade he's been putting on because this is
not the Dick Cheney any of us knew. If you recall, when George was elected
everybody said, "Well, George may be inexperienced but we have good-- we have
a good stable person in Dick Cheney." And now what we have-- he's bombs away.
I mean, that-- I-- I don't under-- we don't understand it in terms of everything,
the intransient position that Dick Cheney takes on every issue, you find that
reflected in the White House.

BILL MOYERS: You're very angry in here about the war.

VICTOR GOLD: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

VICTOR GOLD: Because I can say it, even though the people in politics can't use
the word. I feel for those kids, and they are kids, over there. They are getting
killed every day, and their life-- this is a-- their lives are being wasted. Now, when
politicians use-- they say, "Oh, no." I didn't-- they're heroes. But their lives are
wasted. This is a to-- and they're going to keep getting killed as long-- and while
they get killed, we have a white tie dinners at the White House. This is not the
president says this is a total war. Where is the sacrifice? I know what a total war is
like. You know what a total war is like. I feel for the families of the kids who are
over there and the people who are getting killed in a war and the-- every day that
passes, every day that passes there are more of them going to be killed toward no
end.

BILL MOYERS: Well, this haunts me, of course, from the Johnson years, the war
in Vietnam, the year we escalated the war so intensely in 1965. I remember
dinners at the Smithsonian, dances at the Smithsonian. You know, there was a
disconnect. And I remember a piece you wrote some years ago about how
presidents get isolated. And you said they have to burst the bubble of celebrity
and sycophancy. Remember that?

VICTOR GOLD: Oh, yes.

BILL MOYERS: How do they-- George W. Bush has disappeared into the
presidency, hasn't he?

VICTOR GOLD: He's acting a role. "I'm president of the United States." I'm-- do
they really-- has their feet touched the ground? This is the thing that I wonder.
We have people-- when I say "have their feet touched the ground," do they
really-- is this really a real life thing to them? Clinton-- one of the things I fault
this president for is the same thing as Clinton. How much time did he spend in
the White House? My God, I remember when presidents spent time in the White--
all you have to do is drop a manifest on-- an Air Force One manifest and they're
off and flying to, as President Bush said recently when he went out to Kansas to
hug people, he said-- it's his job as president to comfort people. That was not--

17 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

and by the way, I don't-- that was not Lyndon Johnson's-- I was no great admirer
of Johnson. But he understood there were greater responsibilities. But I felt that's
what I held against Clinton, too. This idea of what gets into them? It becomes a
celebrity thing to them. And they get taken away from-- carried away by it.

BILL MOYERS: You're also angry in here about the Justice Department under
Gonzalez and boys, why?

VICTOR GOLD: I think it's a corrupted justice department. When I say

"corrupted," I don't mean dollars and cents. I mean corrupted in terms of the
values of our con-- our constitutional values. And I think you've heard some of the
prosecuting attorneys who were fired speak out and the-- some of the
investigation-- the investigations bringing out exactly what's going on up there.
And when you corrupt the justice system, the Justice Department, that's the most
important department of government in terms of protecting our constitutional
values. One of the reasons I wanted the Democrats to win was because I knew the
yo-yo Republicans on the Hill were not going to investigate even those they-- we--
we claim we are the constitutionalists. We are the ones concerned about the
Constitution. We want strict constructionist judges. We don't want to over-- over--
overreaching-- overreaching federal government. The fact is the-- I knew there
would be investigations. And I-- I-- I want these investigations to go on 'cause
they weren't going on when the Republicans were in control of Congress.

BILL MOYERS: Didn't I hear you say you wanted the Democrats to win last
November?

VICTOR GOLD: I'd say open up the book. I say open up the book. I wasn't the
only one. We-- we-- when-- when I-- I thought it was marvelous in 2006 because
I figured if these people have gone this far under the 2004 mandates, the things
with the war and everything going on the way it is, if this White House wins, can
you-- my god, we'll be at war with Iran in two weeks.

BILL MOYERS: Today what we have are two parties that are really captive of big
wealthy interest, don't we?

VICTOR GOLD: You're talking about the wealth-- you're talking about the people
who put up the money for their campaign. Absolutely. But they're captive because
their only interest is, "How do we get reelected?" And that's where you see what--
what do they want to do when they get reelected? Well, they want to make
money. Now, you don't make money inside Congress anymore, as I point out in
the book. We've got K Street . They-

BILL MOYERS: They become lobbyists.

VICTOR GOLD: The U.S.-- we have an attorney general for the first time in my
lifetime, I've known of-- of attorney generals becoming lawyers, we've got an
Attorney General Ashcroft goes establish-- he establishes his own lobbying firm.

BILL MOYERS: Do you sometimes feel like a dinosaur standing in a lake that's
drying up around your ankles?

VICTOR GOLD: Well, I'll put it to you this way. I more and more read histories of
the 1940s and '50s and listen to Frank Sinatra music and Bobby Darren-- try to-

18 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, so, what do we do? I mean, we don't want to just be old
curmudgeons here at the end, do we?

VICTOR GOLD: I don't want to be an old curmudgeon. But, I'll wait-- look, I'm
waiting for-- put it this way. You remember the old play-- oh, that play Waiting for
Lefty. Well, I'm waiting for righty. And for a rebirth of Goldwater. I don't see him
around.

BILL MOYERS: The book is Invasion of the Partysnatchers: How the Holy Rollers
and the Neocons Destroyed the GOP. Vic Gold It's been a pleasure to be with you.

VICTOR GOLD: Thank you for having me on the show.

BARRY GOLDWATER: Now, certainly simple honesty is not too much to demand
of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone.

BILL MOYERS: If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn't want
him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That's too much prime real estate
for even the pure in heart.

But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was
to chastity. When it comes to money and power he's carnivorous: all appetite and
no taste. He'll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be
picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the
old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the
way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along
with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the
Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his
investments there.

The ambitious can't resist his blandishments, Nor his power to get or keep them in
office where they can return his favors. Mae West would be green with envy at his
little black book of conquests. Tory Margaret Thatcher. Labor's Tony Blair. George
Bush. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't say no. Now Bill and Hillary Clinton, who know
which side of their bread is buttered, like having it slathered by their new buddy
Rupert. Our media and political system has turned into a mutual protection racket.

You will not be surprised to learn that Murdoch's company paid little or no federal
income tax over the past four years. His powerful portfolio positions him to claim a
big stake in Yahoo and his takeover of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now owned by
the Bancroft family, which, like Adam and Eve, the parents of us all, are tempted
to trade their birthright for a wormy apple.

Murdoch and THE JOURNAL's editorial page are made for each other. They've both
pursued the right's corporate and political agenda of the past quarter century.
Both venerate what THE JOURNAL editorials call the "animal spirits" of business.
But THE JOURNAL's newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and
independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he'll not meddle
with the reporting. But he's accustomed to using journalism as a personal
spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of
war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch
himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be "$20 a barrel for

19 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/transcript5.html

oil."

Of course he wasn't the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he's not the first
to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with Fox news is
not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he's made of its
journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little
serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and
celebrities. Now he's about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national
newsrooms remaining in the country.

But the problem isn't just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs, and other
financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public minded
newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost
cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the
predator of the hour. The modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by
money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power,
these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be
damned.

That's it for this JOURNAL. We'll be back next week unless we've been bought out.
I'm Bill Moyers.

Newsletter For Educators About the Series Bill Moyers on PBS Feedback

© Public Affairs Television 2010 Privacy Policy TV Schedule DVD/VHS Terms of Use FAQ

20 of 20 4/16/2011 2:02 PM