A reader, Chip Dudley, responds to my earlier post on the Bill Moyers/ Weekly Standard contretemps:
I'm not so sure about your analysis. Hayes' sentence "a dialogue between Moyers and, among others, [Dershowitz, et. al]," would seem to indicate that Moyers interviewed the man. If someone else interviewed him, then Moyers and Dershowitz did not have a dialogue. Pretty simple, really.
In fact, Hayes response to Moyers was singularly unimpressive. One would expect Hayes, especially considering the power and certitude of his original article, to painstakingly show how Moyers was exactly wrong in every area. He didn't really do that.
I'm no fan of Bill Moyers, but I'd have to score this one for him.
First of all, thanks for the letter; its polite and thoughtful tone are especially appreciated. Unfortunately, I just can't agree with you.
When a public figure like Moyers decides to pick a fight with a publication over the way it has portrayed him, the practical reality is that the onus is on the public figure to carefully craft a response which is virtually unassailable. I spent a great deal of time in a previous life trying to get reporters to see things my way on behalf of candidates and elected officials. Believe me -- the worst thing you can do in this type of situation is to get caught being as misleading as you are accusing the reporter of having been. It is, as I said earlier, a credibility killer.
And in this case, we're not talking about a niggling detail, either. Moyers opens his piece with these words: "Stephen Hayes opens his attack on me by claiming that in the PBS specials following September 11th I interviewed, among others, "Cornel West, O.J. attorney Alan Dershowitz, and 'Vagina Monologues' playwright Eve Ensler." He gets it right only once. I have never met or interviewed Alan Dershowitz or Eve Ensler.
"Two errors on the opening pitch: Not a promising start. But it's the standard (no pun intended) Mr. Hayes maintains for the remainder of his game."
In other words, these allegations of factual "errors" are the thread upon which Moyers hangs his entire response, and it's very hard to read them now without believing that Moyers meant to deceive. Imagine how much weaker his entire letter would have been had he opened it by quibbling over the words "dialogue," "interviewed" and "presented," rather than by suggesting that the reporter had simply gotten the facts wrong. There's really just no comparison.
Anyway, thanks again for the letter, and I hope you keep reading. Anyone else who would like to respond can e-mail The O'Toole File here. I can't promise I'll print them all, but I'll certainly give them all a fair reading.
--------